Is a trial court's error in omitting specific intent and knowledge element of the crime in a sexual assault case harmless?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Staten, E053566, Super.Ct.No. RIF145391 (Cal. App. 2012):
The trial court's error in omitting the specific intent and knowledge element of the crime was harmless, since "it appears 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.' [Citations.]" (People v. Harris (1994) 9 Cal.4th 407, 424.)
The judgment is affirmed.
"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
For the purposes of section 1108.2(1) of the California Criminal Code, is there any constitutional error in a trial court's decision to instruct the jury in a sexual assault case to consider the use of sexual assault evidence admitted under Section 1108? (California, United States of America)
Is sexual penetration a specific intent crime rather than a general intent crime? (California, United States of America)
If defendant fails to establish all the errors of the trial court as a cumulative result of the cumulative error, can he continue to argue that the cumulative effect of the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and mandates reversal? (California, United States of America)
Is it a federal error that crime requires general not specific intent rather than specific intent? (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)
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)
Does the Attorney General have a valid argument that if a trial court erred, if the error was harmless, is that error harmless? (California, United States of America)
In a sexual assault case, how have the courts dealt with claims that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the victim's other sexual conduct? (California, United States of America)
If assault requires the intent to injure the victim, can assault be a specific intent crime? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a jury to convict a defendant of sexual assault where they failed to instruct on sexual intent as an element of the crime? (California, United States of America)
