Does the Chapman standard of review apply where conflicting specific intent and implied malice have been given?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. Francis Xavier Guilfoyle II, H033779, No. CC801147 (Cal. App. 2010):
In People v. Lee, supra, 43 Cal.3d 666, 676, the court held that the Chapman standard of review applied "where conflicting specific intent and implied malice instructions have been given" with regard to attempted murder since the conflicting instructions were "constitutionally deficient." (Id. at pp. 670-676.)
"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
What is the standard of review applied to a specific intent element of a crime? (California, United States of America)
In reviewing a section 654 challenge, what standard of review does the court apply in reviewing the challenge? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review for implied malice in a second degree murder case? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review applied by a reviewing court to determine that a sentence is cruel and unusual? (California, United States of America)
What is implied malice in the context of the implied malice doctrine? (California, United States of America)
What is implied malice for the implied malice of a defendant in the second degree felony-murder doctrine? (California, United States of America)
Is implied malice permitted a jury to convict a defendant of first degree murder based upon implied malice? (California, United States of America)
How does the abuse of review standard of review apply? (California, United States of America)
Is the intent of an aider and abettor to facilitate the commission of a specific intent crime necessarily the intent to achieve a future consequence? (California, United States of America)
When reviewing a claim of a violation of the constitutional right to confront, does the court apply the de novo standard of review? (California, United States of America)
