Does a court have a sua sponte duty to instruct on the meaning of "reasonable prospect of an acquittal"?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. West, A152085 (Cal. App. 2019):

We further find the court did not have a sua sponte duty to instruct on the meaning of "reasonable prospect of an acquittal." A court does not have to define phrases that are commonly understood and do not have a technical meaning peculiar to the law. (See People v. Estrada (1995) 11 Cal.4th 568, 574, 578-579 [holding "reckless indifference to human life" does not have a technical meaning and that court has no sua sponte duty to give explanatory instructions in the absence of a request when the terms are commonly understood by those familiar with the English language].)

Other Questions

Does a failure to instruct the jeopardy jury with the definition of "reasonable prospect of acquittal" contribute to a verdict obtained? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the instructions in the context of manslaughter instructions in cases where the instruction was limited or limited? (California, United States of America)
Can an appellant seek review of an instruction in the Superior Court of Appeal where the original instruction was found to have made errors that could have been cured in the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Does the court have a sua sponte duty to instruct the jeopardy jury on reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
Is there any instructional error in general criminal intent instruction used by the trial court to include counts 4 and 7 in the General Criminal intent instruction? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant have grounds to argue that a trial court prejudicially errs in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte at the penalty phase to disregard the no-sympathy instruction at the guilt phase? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review applied by appellate courts to a decision by a trial court to instruct or not to instruct a jury? (California, United States of America)
What are the consequences of the Court's failure to instruct on an instructing on a harmless beyond a reasonable doubt finding? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will the jury be instructed to follow the law as instructed, rather than consider any comments by the prosecutor that conflicted with the trial court's instructions? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.






Alexi purple


Company

  • About
  • Contact us
  • Press
  • Matters
  • Legal

    • Product

  • How it works
  • Pricing
  • Solo & small firms
  • Midsize firms
  • Large firms
  • In-house counsel

    • Resources

  • Resource hub
  • Sample memos
  • Blog
  • FAQ


    • © Copyright 2023 Alexi Inc. All rights reserved.