Does a trial court have a sua sponte duty to specify the underlying felony and to instruct on the elements of the crime?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Furlan, A149145 (Cal. App. 2018):
The People also concede the trial court had a sua sponte duty to specify the underlying felony and to instruct on the elements of such offense. (See People v. McManis (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 608, 614 ["instruction defining misdemeanor within the context of a misdemeanor-manslaughter instruction must be given sua sponte" (italics
Page 13
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Does a trial court have a duty to give an instruction that the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to establish any element of the crime including the element of intent? (California, United States of America)
(1) Does the trial court have a sua sponte duty to give instructions and verdict forms on crime B if warranted by the evidence? (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 is the harmless error analysis that a reviewing court should use when a trial court's jury instructions incorrectly define an element of a charged offense? (California, United States of America)
What are the findings of the California Superior Court of Appeal on the grounds that the instructions given by defendant in his conspiracy to commit felony murder were not tantamount to felony murder instructions? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a defendant to argue that a trial court commits prejudicial error by instructing in the language of CALJIC No.51 that motive is not an element of the crime charged? (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)
How have courts treated a defendant's claim that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on the elements of rape and sodomy generally? (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)
