Does the court have a duty to provide amplification or explanation or amplification of a plaintiff's words or words?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Cobb, D061412 (Cal. App. 2013):
these instructions. When the instructions given are correct and adequate, the court has no sua sponte duty to provide amplification or explanation. (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 778.)
"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
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted a stipulation that a plaintiff must pay any fees that the court might order after hearing an appeal? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
On a motion to be heard by the Court of Appeal at the Superior Court of California for a change of venue, does the Court have any jurisdiction or authority to hear the motion? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a motion where the Court of Appeal found that a lower court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the Plaintiff's claim? (California, United States of America)
How does the court apportion attorney fees between a plaintiff and plaintiff? (California, United States of America)
Is it improper for a court, with the consent of the accused and his counsel, to provide a transcript to the jury in lieu of rereading testimony in open court? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the words 'unequivocally referable' to their understanding that all the lots in the subdivision, including plaintiffs', were subject to building restrictions? (California, United States of America)
On remand, in what circumstances will the trial court order that a plaintiff be entitled to the same amount of compensation as a plaintiff in a class action? (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)
