What is the standard of review for a jury to interpret CALCRIM No. 316 as a crime of moral turpitude?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Figueroa, E067015 (Cal. App. 2018):
Defendant contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 316 because drug abuse is not a crime of moral turpitude. The People concede the trial court erred, but contend the error was harmless.
We apply the de novo standard of review. (People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 133.)
"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 reviewing a section 654 challenge, what standard of review does the court apply in reviewing the challenge? (California, United States of America)
When a bench officer issued an order for a fee under review was not the same bench officer as the judge who presided over the trial, can the court exercise a less deferential standard of review? (California, United States of America)
Can a defense interpreter only interpret words of the witness interpreter at trial? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review applied to a specific intent element of a crime? (California, United States of America)
What is the moral turpitude standard in sexual assault cases? (California, United States of America)
On appeal, what is the standard of review in the context of a motion for summary review of the facts of the case? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review for a defense motion to visit the scene of the crime? (California, United States of America)
What is the applicable standard of review for an application of the independent review test? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review for reviewing state law errors at the guilt phase of a trial? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review for violations of the right to interpreter? (California, United States of America)
