California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gray, D073851 (Cal. App. 2018):
facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury's understanding of the case." ' " (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154.) We disagree. Gray does not contend the causation instruction given by the trial court was incorrect. Indeed, it encompasses the principles of proximate cause and foreseeability ("likely to happen") that are discussed in more detail in his proposed instructions. " '[Defendant] does not . . . challenge the content of the . . . instructions given, nor did he request any additional instructions at trial.  Defendant's contention essentially is that the instructions given needed amplification or explanation; but since he did not request such amplification or explanation, error cannot now be predicated upon the trial court's failure to give them on its own motion.' " (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 426; accord, People v. Burnett (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 868, 875 (Burnett) [" '[W]hen a court has generally instructed on a point, defendant must make a request for a more specific instruction or be deemed to have waived the point on appeal.' "].)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.