How have courts interpreted the Page 16 "indiscriminate would-be killer" instruction?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Behill, F074635 (Cal. App. 2018):
Appellant challenges the instruction on two grounds. First, he argues the instruction was prejudicial because it referred to appellant as an "indiscriminate would-be killer." Although it is questionable whether the instruction refers to appellant, rather than a defendant in general, our duty is to look at the instructions as a whole, not in isolation. (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016.) First, the clear primary purpose of the
Page 16
"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 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)
How have courts interpreted the principles defining a trial court's duty to instruct sua sponte on defense? (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)
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)
How have courts interpreted the instruction in the context of a jury instruction in a criminal case? (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)
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)
How have the courts interpreted the specific intent instructions under the standard aiding and abetting instructions? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted counsel's arguments in a trial where the jury was instructed to follow the instructions? (California, United States of America)
