In what circumstances have the courts found that CALCRIM No. 220 of the California Criminal Code, or Cal.Crim No.220, is sufficient to compel a jury to find that a prosecutor must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Kovacevich, H037257 (Cal. App. 2013):
In Henning the court affirmed its decision in People v. Wyatt that CALCRIM No. 220 " 'viewed together with other instructions, correctly informed the jury that the
Page 39
prosecutor was obliged to prove each element of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.' " (Henning, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 406; People v. Wyatt, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1601.)
"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
In what circumstances have courts rejected the argument that CALCRIM No. 220 of the Criminal Code requires the prosecution to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the effect of CALCRIM No. 220 of the California Criminal Code on the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
When will a prosecutor be found to have made a claim of misconduct when they argued "the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt"? (California, United States of America)
Is a prosecutor prohibited from misstating the law to reduce the burden to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard for determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does section 27 of the California Criminal Code, section 778a, subdivision (a)(1) of the Criminal Code of California apply to a defendant who is charged with a charge of conspiracy to commit a crime committed outside of the state? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law in which a jury has found that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Is it improper for a prosecutor to misstate the law generally and particularly the prosecution's burden of proving every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does section 190.3 of the California Criminal Code allow the penalty phase jury to consider the "circumstances" of the crime within the meaning of section 190 of the Criminal Code? (California, United States of America)
Can a reasonable trier of fact have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
