Logo
Searching Tips

When searching Forecite California, there are shortcuts you can take to find the information you are looking for:

1. By Code Section:

Forecite uses standard abbreviations for different types of codes. Those abbreviations can be found below:

Codes:
CCR California Code of Regulations
Corp C Corporations Code
EC Evidence Code
FG Fish and Game Code
GC Government Code
HN Harbors & Navigation Code
HS Health & Safety Code
PC Penal Code
RT Revenue & Tax Code
VC Vehicle Code
WI Welfare & Institutions Code

Using these codes to search is very simple. For example, if you wanted to search for Penal Code section 20, you would type PC 20 into the search box.

2. By CALJIC Number:

Since Forecite is indexed to CALJIC, searching for CALJIC numbers is easy. For example, to search for CALJIC 3.16, you would type 3.16 into the search box.

3. By Case Name or Citation:

To find a case or citation, simply enter all or part of the case’s citation. Since many cases are known only by one name involved, it is often helpful to not search for the entire citation. For example, if you were searching for references to People v. Geiger (84) 35 C3d 510, 526 [199 CR 45], you could search for People v. Geiger or just Geiger. Searching for Geiger might be more helpful since it would find references to the case that do not include the full citation.

  • Contact Us
  • Log In
  • My Account

  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts & Settlements
  • News & media
  • Blog
  • Contact

Back to  Previous Page
Back to top

SERIES 200 POST-TRIAL INTRODUCTORY—CONTENTS

A. Introductory Instruction And Admonitions (200-207)

  • F 200 Duties Of Judge And Jury (Case Law Discussing This Instruction)
  • F 200.1.1 Miscellaneous Instructions
    • F 200.1 Inst 1 Improper To Suggest That The Law In The Instructions “Applies To This Case”
    • F 200.1.1 Inst 2 Definition Of Instruction
  • F 200.1.2 Availability Of Written Instructions
    • F 200.1.2 Inst 1 Reference To Availability Of Written Instructions Should Be Made At The End Of The Instructions
    • F 200.1.2 Note 1 Written Instructions To The Jury
    • F 200.1.2 Note 2 Whether Written Instructions Should Include Descriptive Titles
    • F 200.1.2 Note 3 Record Must Include Proposed Instruction Titles And Numbers
  • F 200.2 Duty Of Jurors
    • F 200.2 Inst 1 Improper To Require Jurors To “Decide What Happened”
  • F 200.3 Do Not Let Bias, Etc. Influence You
    • F 200.3 Inst 1 Jury Not To Be Influenced By Conjecture
  • F 200.4 No Consideration Of Punishment
    • F 200.4 Inst 1 (a & b) Error To Imply That Jury Must “Reach A Decision”
  • F 200.5 Duty To Follow The Law
    • F 200.5 Inst 1 No Consideration Of Punishment—Each Juror Has Duty To Follow The Law
    • F 200.5 Inst 2 Counsel’s Argument That A Specific Rule Is Included In A General Instruction
    • F 200.5 Inst 3 Counsel’s Argument That Jury Should Utilize Common Dictionary Meaning Of A Term
  • F 200.6 Consider Instructions Together; Repeated Instructions
    • F 200.6 Inst 1 (a-f) Supplemental Instructions Have No Undue Importance
  • F 200.7 Definition Of Words Or Phrases
  • F 200.8 Some Instructions May Not Apply
    • F 200.8 Inst 1 Some Instructions Do Not Apply: Jurors Not Required To Make “Findings” About “What The Facts Are”
  • F 200 Note 1 Duties Of Judge/Jury: Jury Nullification
  • F 201 Do Not Investigate
  • F 202 Note-Taking
    • F 202 Inst 1 Jurors Should Not Be Required To Accept The Reporter’s Notes As Accurate
    • F 202 Note 1 Preliminary and Introductory Instruction Regarding Juror Note-Taking
  • F 203 Multiple Defendants
    • F 203 Inst 1 (a & b) Multiple Defendants: Do Not Consider As A Group
    • F 203 Inst 2 Multiple Defendants: Elements Of Charge Must Be Specified As To Each Defendant
  • F 203 NOTES
    • F 203 Note 1 Prejudicial Joinder Of Weak Case With Strong Case
    • F 203 Note 2 Strategy ALERT: Counsel Must Request Instruction On Limited Admissibility Of Evidence Against Some Defendants And Not Others
  • F 204 Defendant Physically Restrained
    • F 204 Inst 1 Consideration Of Effect Of Physical Restraints On Defendant’s Demeanor
    • F 204 Inst 2 (a-g) Cautionary Instruction Regarding Physical Restraints
    • F 204 Inst 3 (a-f) Cautionary Instruction: Courtroom Security
    • F 204 Inst 4 Courtroom Security: Necessity Of Repeating Presumption Of Innocence
  • F 204 NOTES
    • F 204 Note 1 Defendant May Make Record Showing Prejudice From Shackling
    • F 204 Note 2 Cautionary Instruction On Shackling Should Not Be Given Over Defendant’s Objection
    • F 204 Note 3 Decision Regarding Shackling Must Be Made By The Court
    • F 204 Note 4 Shackling: Potential For Prejudice Even When Jury Doesn’t See Shackles
    • F 204 Note 5 Defendant Must Object To Security Measures At Trial
    • F 204 Note 6 Physical Restraints May Abridge Defendant’s Right To Attend Side Bar Conferences
    • F 204 Note 7 Failure to Instruct Upon Shackling: Standard Of Prejudice: Restraints Visible.
    • F 204 Note 8 Shackling: Nature Of Crime Does Not Justify Shackling
    • F 204 Note 9 Shackling: Prejudice Is Heightened In Capital Trial
    • F 204 Note 10 Courtroom Security: Use Of Electric Shock Belt As Compromising Defendant’s Ability To Participate In His Or Her Own Defense
    • F 204 Note 11 Physical Restraints/Shackling Of Defendant: Failure To Object As Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
    • F 204 Note 12 Improper Shackling Reversible Where At Least One Juror Saw The Shackles And Prosecution Evidence Was Not Overwhelming
    • F 204 Note 13 Courtroom Security: Self-Representation—Exclusion Of Pro Se Defendant From Sidebar Conferences
    • F 204 Note 14 Courtroom Security And Physical Restraints Distinguished
    • F 204 Note 15 Courtroom Security: Whether Audience Seating Arrangement Necessitates Cautionary Instruction
    • F 204 Note 16 Courtroom Security: Self-Representation—Exclusion Of Pro Se Defendant From Sidebar Conferences
    • F 204 Note 17 Anonymous Victim Or Witness
    • F 204 Note 18 Shackling Of Defense Witness
  • F 205 Charge Removed From Jury Consideration
    • F 205 Inst 1 Cautionary Instruction: Dismissed Charge
    • F 206 One or More Defendants Removed From Case
    • F 206 Inst 1 (a & b) Cautionary Instruction: Dismissed Defendant
  • F 207 Proof Need Not Show Actual Date
    • F 207 Inst 1 Proof Need Now Show Actual Date: “On Or About” As Preferable To “Reasonably Close”
    • F 207 Note 1 Time of Crime: Effect Of Accusatory Pleading And Proof
    • F 207 Note 2 Time of Crime: Request For Continuance Necessary To Preserve Variance Issue
    • F 207 Note 3 Specification of Distinction Between CALCRIM 207 and CALCRIM 3501
  • F 208-219 Reserved
  • B. General Legal Concepts (220-226)
  • F 220 Reasonable Doubt (Case Law Discussing This Instruction)
  • F 220.1 Presumption Of Innocence: No Bias Because Defendant Arrested And Charged
  • F 220.1 Inst 1
    • No Bias Against Defendant
  • F 220.1 Inst 2 Modification Where Defendant Self-Surrendered
  • F 220.1 Inst 3 (a & b) Charging Document Does Not Permit An Inference Of Guilt
  • F 220.1 Inst 4 Jury Not To Consider Indictment As Evidence
  • F 220.1 Inst 5 Burden Of Proof Never Shifts To Defendant
  • F 220.2 Presumption Of Innocence: Proof Of Each Element Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
    • F 220.2 Inst 1 Prosecutor Must Prove Every Essential Fact
    • F 220.2 Inst 2 Prosecutor Must Prove Every Essential Element
    • F 220.2 Inst 3 The Jury Should Be Instructed Using The “Each Element” Formulation Of The January 2006 Version Of CALCRIM 220
  • F 220.3 Reasonable Doubt Defined
    • F 220.3 Inst 1 Comparison Of Burdens: “Abiding Conviction” Should Be Defined To Avoid Confusion With The Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard
    • F 220.3 Inst 2 (a-j) Juror May Have A Reasonable Doubt Based On A Lack Of Evidence
    • F 220.3 Inst 3 Definition Of “Abiding” As Lasting And Permanent
    • F 220.3 Inst 4 Abiding Conviction Requires More Than “Strong And Convincing Belief”
    • F 220.3 Inst 5 (a & b) Reasonable Doubt May Be Based On Conflict In The Evidence
    • F 220.3 Inst 6 Abiding Conviction Requires That Jurors Be More Than “Firmly Convinced” Of The Defendant’s Guilt
  • F 220.4 Jurors Must Impartially Consider All The Evidence; Unless Guilt Proven Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Jurors Must Find Defendant Not Guilty
    • F 220.4 Inst 1 Any Juror With Reasonable Doubt Must Vote To Acquit
    • F 220.4 Inst 2 Presumption Of Innocence Should Be Applied To Each Defendant Individually
    • F 220.4 Inst 3 Burden Of Proof: Definition Of Burden
    • F 220.4 Inst 4 (a & b) Rejection Or Disbelief Of Defense Evidence Does Not Satisfy The Prosecution’s Burden Of Proof
    • F 220.4 Inst 5 Prosecution Bound by Defendant’s Statement Unless Contrary Evidence Presented
    • F 220.4 Inst 6 Duty To Presume Defendant Innocent: No Necessity For Defendant To Produce Evidence
    • F 220.4 Inst 7 Clarification Of The Burden Of Proof When One Defendant Points The Finger At Another
    • F 220.4 Inst 8 Strong Suspicion No Substitute For Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
  • F 220 NOTES
    • F 220 Note 1 Prosecution’s Burden Should Be Included In Pretrial Instructions On Jurors Duties
    • F 220 Note 2 Whether “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” Should Be Defined
    • F 220 Note 3 Alternative Definition Of Reasonable Doubt
    • F 220 Note 4 Improper To Describe Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt In Terms Of “Every Day” Decisions
    • F 220 Note 5 Error To Instruct Jury That Defendant Is Presumed Not Guilty
    • F 220 Note 6 Counsel Has Duty To Challenge CALCRIM 103 Notwithstanding View Of Intermediate California Appellate Court That The Issue Is Frivolous
    • F 220 Note 7 Pretrial Instructions During Voir Dire: Impact On Jury Instruction Errors At Trial
    • F 220 Note 8 Equal Protection Challenge To CALCRIM 103 Based On Bush v. Gore (2000) 531 US 98 [148 LEd2d 388; 121 SCt 525]
    • F 220 Note 9 No State Has Reduced Reasonable Doubt To A Feeling Of An “Abiding Conviction” In The Truth Of The Charge As “Satisfactorily” Shown
    • F 220 Note 10 CALJIC 2.90 Unconstitutionally Admonishes the Jury That a Possible Doubt Is Not a Reasonable Doubt
    • F 220 Note 11 Precluding Prosecutor From Unduly Emphasizing Instructional Language Regarding “Mere Possible Or Imaginary Doubt”
    • F 220 Note 12 Other Jurisdictions Instruct The Jurors On The Prosecution’s Burden To Prove “Every Element” Or “Each Element”
  • F 220 Revision History and Commentary
  • F 221 Reasonable Doubt: Bifurcated Trial
  • F 221.1 Presumption Of Innocence: No Bias Because Defendant Arrested And Charged
    • F 221.1 Inst 1 No Bias Against Defendant
    • F 221.1 Inst 2 Modification Where Defendant Self-Surrendered
    • F 221.1 Inst 3. (a & b) Charging Document Does Not Permit An Inference Of Guilt
    • F 221.1 Inst 4 Jury Not To Consider Indictment As Evidence
    • F 221.1 Inst 5 Burden Of Proof Never Shifts To Defendant
  • F 221.2 Presumption Of Innocence: Proof Of Each Element Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
    • F 221.2 Inst 1 Prosecutor Must Prove Every Essential Fact
    • F 221.2 Inst 2 Prosecutor Must Prove Every Essential Element
  • F 221.3 Reasonable Doubt Defined
    • F 221.3 Inst 1 Comparison Of Burdens: “Abiding Conviction” Should Be Defined To Avoid Confusion With The Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard
    • F 221.3 Inst 2 (a-j) Juror May Have A Reasonable Doubt Based On A Lack Of Evidence
    • F 221.3 Inst 3 Definition Of “Abiding” As Lasting And Permanent
    • F 221.3 Inst 4 Abiding Conviction Requires More Than “Strong And Convincing Belief”
    • F 221.3 Inst 5 (a & b) Reasonable Doubt May Be Based On Conflict In The Evidence
    • F 221.3 Inst 6 Abiding Conviction Requires That Jurors Be More Than “Firmly Convinced” Of The Defendant’s Guilt
  • F 221.4 Jurors Must Impartially Consider All The Evidence; Unless Guilt Proven Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Jurors Must Find Defendant Not Guilty
    • F 221.4 Inst 1 Any Juror With Reasonable Doubt Must Vote To Acquit
    • F 221.4 Inst 2 Presumption Of Innocence Should Be Applied To Each Defendant Individually
    • F 221.4 Inst 3 Burden Of Proof: Definition Of Burden
    • F 221.4 Inst 4 (a & b) Rejection Or Disbelief Of Defense Evidence Does Not Satisfy The Prosecution’s Burden Of Proof
    • F 221.4 Inst 5 Prosecution Bound by Defendant’s Statement Unless Contrary Evidence Presented
    • .F 221.4 Inst 6 Duty To Presume Defendant Innocent: No Necessity For Defendant To Produce Evidence
    • F 221.4 Inst 7 Clarification Of The Burden Of Proof When One Defendant Points The Finger At Another
    • F 221.4 Inst 8 Strong Suspicion No Substitute For Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
  • F 221 NOTES
    • F 221 Note 1 Prosecution’s Burden Should Be Included In Pretrial Instructions On Jurors Duties
    • F 221 Note 2 Whether “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” Should Be Defined
    • F 221 Note 3 Alternative Definition Of Reasonable Doubt
    • F 221 Note 4 Improper To Describe Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt In Terms Of “Every Day” Decisions
    • F 221 Note 5 Error To Instruct Jury That Defendant Is Presumed Not Guilty
    • F 221 Note 6 Counsel Has Duty To Challenge CALCRIM 103 Notwithstanding View Of Intermediate California Appellate Court That The Issue Is Frivolous
    • F 221 Note 7 Pretrial Instructions During Voir Dire: Impact On Jury Instruction Errors At Trial
    • F 221 Note 8 Equal Protection Challenge To CALCRIM 103 Based On Bush v. Gore (2000) 531 US 98 [148 LEd2d 388; 121 SCt 525]
    • F 221 Note 9 No State Has Reduced Reasonable Doubt To A Feeling Of An “Abiding Conviction” In The Truth Of The Charge As “Satisfactorily” Shown
    • F 221 Note 10 CALJIC 2.90 Unconstitutionally Admonishes the Jury That a Possible Doubt Is Not a Reasonable Doubt
    • F 221 Note 11 Precluding Prosecutor From Unduly Emphasizing Instructional Language Regarding “Mere Possible Or Imaginary Doubt”
  • F 222 Evidence (Case Law Discussing This Instruction)
  • F 222 Evidence: Paragraphs 1-5
  • F 222 Evidence: Paragraph 6C Re: Stipulations
  • F 222 Note 1 Juror Note Taking: Advisement That Argument Of Counsel May Not Be Readback To The Jury
  • F 223 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence: Defined (Case Law Discussing This Instruction)
    • F 223 Inst 1 Improper Implication That Defendant Must Disprove Elements
    • F 223 Inst 2 Applicability Of Circumstantial Evidence Principles To Expert Testimony
  • F 223 Notes
    • F 223 Note 1 Unconstitutional Inference Argument Rejected
    • F 223 Note 2 Limitation Of Reasonable Doubt/Burden Of Proof Principles To Circumstantial Evidence Improperly Implies That Such Principles Do Not Apply To Direct Evidence
    • F 223 Note 3 If CC 223 Is Given CC 224 and CC 225 Should Also Be Given
  • F 224 Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency Of Evidence (Case Law Discussing This Instruction)
    • F 224 Inst 1 Circumstantial Evidence: Guilt Vs. Innocence
    • F 224 Inst 2 Mere Suspicion Or Possibility Insufficient For Inference Of A Fact
    • F 224 Inst 3 Limitation Of Reasonable Doubt/Burden Of Proof Principles To Circumstantial Evidence Improperly Implies That Such Principles Do Not Apply To Direct Evidence
    • F 224 Inst 4 Applicability Of Circumstantial Evidence Principles To Expert Testimony
    • F 224 Inst 5 Improper To Define Burden Of Proof In Terms Of Being Convinced Or Satisfied
  • F 224 Notes
    • F 224 Note 1 Lesser Standard Argument Rejected
    • F 224 Note 2 Instruction Required When Direct Evidence May Be Rejected Or Prosecution Relies On Circumstantial Evidence
    • F 224 Note 3 Giving Of Circumstantial Evidence Instructions When Not Warranted By The Evidence As Harmless Error
  • F 225 Circumstantial Evidence: Intent Or Mental State (Case Law Discussing This Instruction)
    • F 225 Inst 1 Circumstantial Evidence To Prove Intent Or Mental State: Inculpatory Versus Exculpatory Mental States
    • F 225 Inst 2 Mere Suspicion Or Possibility Insufficient For Inference Of A Fact
    • F 225 Inst 3 Modification For Crimes Involving “Specific Intent” And “Mental State”
    • F 225 Inst 4 Knowledge As Mental Element
    • F 225 Inst 5 Limitation Of Reasonable Doubt/Burden Of Proof Principles To Circumstantial Evidence Improperly Implies That Such Principles Do Not Apply To Direct Evidence
    • F 225 Inst 6 Applicability Of Circumstantial Evidence Principles To Expert Testimony
    • F 225 Inst 7 Improper To Define Burden Of Proof In Terms Of Being Convinced Or Satisfied
  • F 225 Notes
    • F 225 Note 1 Unconstitutional Inference Argument Rejected
    • F 225 Note 2 Circumstantial Evidence Instruction Applicable When Circumstantial Evidence Relates To Intent
    • .F 225 Note 3 Applicability Of Circumstantial Evidence Principles To Expert Testimony
    • F 225 Note 4 Mental State And Intent Are Normally Proven By Circumstantial Evidence
  • F 225 Revision History and Commentary
  • F 226 Witnesses (Case Law Discussing This Instruction)
  • F 226.1 Juror’s Duty To Judge Credibility Of Witnesses
    • F 226.1 Inst 1 Each Juror Must Individually Judge Credibility
    • F 226.1 Inst 2 Improper To Define Jurors Duties In Terms Of Deciding The Truth Based Only On Their Common Sense And Experience
    • F 226.1 Inst 3 Cautionary Instruction Regarding Juror Use Of Common Sense And Experience To Trump Expert Opinion
    • F 226.1 Inst 4 Juror Reliance On Common Sense Or Experience May Compromise The Reasonable Doubt Standard
    • F 226.1 Inst 5 Exceptions To Instruction That Each Witness Is To Be Judged By The Same Standard
    • F 226.1 Inst 6 Expressing Witness Evaluation In Terms Of Belief As Misleading
    • F 226.1 Inst 7 No Bias In Favor Of Law Enforcement Witness
    • F 226.1 Inst 8 (a & b) Witnesses: “Same Standard” Language Is Confusing And Misleading
    • F 226.1 Inst 9 Credibility of Witness: Applicability To Out-Of-Court Statements
    • F 226.1 Inst 10 Believability Of Witness: Jury May Accept A Portion Of The Testimony
    • F 226.1 Inst 11 Jurors Do Not Have To Choose Between Prosecution And Defense Evidence
  • F 226.2 Jurors May Consider Anything Re: Truth Or Accuracy
    • F 226.2 Inst 1 Improper To Imply A Defense Obligation To “Disprove” The Truth Or Accuracy Of Testimony
    • F 226.2 Inst 2 Listed Factors Are Not Exclusive
    • F 226.2 Inst 3 Credibility Of Witness: Use Of Drugs, Alcohol Or Other Mental Impairment Of Witness At The Time Of The Events
    • F 226.2 Inst 4 Interest Of Witness In Outcome Of Proceeding
    • F 226.2 Inst 5 (a-c) Consideration Of Witness Coercion
    • F 226.2 Inst 6 (a & b) Testimony Of Witness Who Was Under The Influence Of Drugs Or Alcohol When Testifying Should Be Viewed With Greater Caution Than Other Witnesses
  • F 226.3 Specific Witness Credibility Factors
    • F 226.3.1 Ability To See Or Hear [Reserved]
    • F 226.3.2 Ability To Remember And Describe [Reserved]
    • F 226.3.3 The Witness’s Behavior While Testifying
      • F 226.3.3 Inst 1 Demeanor Includes Appearance And Behavior F 226.3.4 Whether The Witness Understood The Questions And Answered Them Directly [Reserved]
    • F 226.3.5 Whether The Witness’s Testimony Was Influenced By Bias, Prejudice, Relationship, Or Personal Interest In Outcome Of Case
    • F 226.3.6 Witness’s Attitude About Case/Testifying
    • F 226.3.7 Past Witness Statements That Are Consistent/Inconsistent With Testimony
    • F 226.3.8 Reasonableness Of The Witness’s Testimony
    • F 226.3.9 Whether Witness’s Testimony Was Proved Or Disproved By The Evidence
      • F 226.3.9 Inst 1 Improper To Imply A Defense Obligation To “Disprove” The Truth Or Accuracy Of Testimony
    • F 226.3.10 Whether Witness Admitted Being Untruthful
      • F 226.3.10 Inst 1 Admission Of Inaccuracy By Witness
    • F 226.3.11 Witness’s Character For Truthfulness
      • F 226.3.11 Inst 1 Witness’s Character For Inaccuracy
    • F 226.3.12 Whether Witness Was Convicted Of Felony
      • F 226.3.12 Inst 1 Whether Or Not Witness Has Been Convicted Of A Felony
    • F 226.3.13 Witness’s Conduct Reflecting On Believability
    • F 226.3.14 Was Witness Promised Immunity/Leniency In Exchange For Testimony
  • F 226.4 Conflicts And Inconsistency In Testimony
    • F 226.4 Inst 1 (a-c) Telling The Jurors That Witnesses “Sometimes Forget” Is Inaccurate And Promotes Unreliable Criminal Convictions
    • F 226.4 Inst 2 (a & b) The CALCRIM Formulation Fails To Precisely Address Honest Misrecollection
    • F 226.4 Inst 3 (a & b) Telling Jurors That Witnesses “Sometimes” Misremember Is Inaccurate And Promotes Unreliable Criminal Convictions
    • F 226.4 Inst 4 Under Ex Post Facto/Due Process Principles CALJIC 2.21.1 Should Be Used In Place Of CALCRIM 105/226
    • F 226.4 Inst 5 (a & b) Witness Credibility: Inability To Cross-Examine Out-Of-Court Declarant’s Statements
    • F 226.4 Inst 6 Deletion Of Unnecessary Verbiage
  • F 226.5 Witness Character For Truthfulness
    • F 226.5 Inst 1 Character For Truth And/Or Accuracy
    • F 226.5 Inst 2 Improper To Presume Truthfulness From Lack Of Discussion
  • F 226.6 Witness No Longer Remembers [Reserved]
  • F 226.7 Witness Deliberately Lied
    • F 226.7 Inst 1 Witness Inaccuracy As To One Fact Relevant To Other Facts
  • F 226.8 Evidence: Preliminary Facts
    • F 226.8 Inst 1 (a & b) Jury Must Only Consider Testimony Based On The Personal Knowledge Of A Witness
    • F 226.8 Inst 2 Witness Credibility: Witness Capacity To Perceive And Recollect As Preliminary Finding Of Fact
  • F 226 NOTES
    • F 226 Note 1 Witness Credibility: Irrelevant Factors Should Be Deleted
    • F 226 Note 2 Bias Of Police Witness Re: Forfeiture And Possession For Sale
    • F 226 Note 3 Witness Credibility: Pretrial Silence as to Exculpatory Evidence—Foundational Facts
    • F 226 Note 4 Unavailability of Witness
    • F 226 Note 5 Witness Bias: Test For Violation Of Sixth Amendment Right To Confrontation
    • F 226 Note 6 Witness Credibility: Coerced Testimony Of Third Party
    • F 226 Note 7 Witness Credibility In Sexual Assault Cases: The Defendant Is Entitled To Attack The Credibility Of The Complainant With All Relevant Impeaching Evidence
    • F 226 Note 8 Witness Credibility In Sexual Assault Cases: Properly Applied, The Fresh Complaint Rule Allows For The Admission Of A Very Limited Class Of Evidence
    • F 226 Note 9 Witness Credibility: Showing Of Reliability Required For Admission Of Prior Threat Of Injury Per EC 1370
    • F 226 Note 10 Witness Competency: Must Be Challenged At Trial; Burden Of Proof
    • F 226 Note 11 Witness Competency: Disabilities
    • F 226 Note 12 Witness Disability: Leading Questions
    • F 226 Note 13 Character For Truthfulness Or Untruthfulness Not Applicable to Mental Disorder Evidence
    • F 226 Note 14 Failure To Give “Witness Willfully False” Instruction As Reversible Error
    • F 226 Note 15 Witness Character For Honesty Or Truthfulness
  • F 227-239 Reserved
  • C. Causation
  • F 240 Causation
    • F 240 Inst 1 Causation: Clarification Of Language
    • F 240 Inst 2 Causation: Applies To Act Or Omission
    • F 240 Inst 3 Causation: Objective Reasonableness Element
    • F 240 Inst 4 Causation/Natural and Probable Consequences: Permits Consideration Only Of Circumstances Known To The Defendant
    • F 240 Inst 5 Causation: Intervening Cause
    • F 240 Inst 6 Intervening Cause: Negligence Of Third Party
    • F 240 Inst 7 General Instructions: Definitions—”Substantially” Or “Substantial”
  • F 240 Notes
    • F 240 Note 1 Sua Sponte Duty To Instruct On Causation
    • F 240 Note 2 Subsequent Medical Treatment As Intervening Cause
    • F 240 Note 3 Negligence Of Third Party Is Not Intervening Cause
    • F 240 Note 4 Superseding Cause: Prejudicial Effect Of Omission
    • F 240 Note 5 Intervening Cause: Need Not Be Committed By Third Party
    • F 240 Note 6 CACI Should Be Used To Define “Superseding Cause”
  • F 241B 249 Reserved
  • D. Union Of Act And Intent
  • F 250 Union Of Act And Intent: General Intent
    • F 250 Inst 1 General Intent: Applicability To Multiple Acts And Course Of Conduct
    • F 250 Inst 2 General Intent: Knowledge Element
    • F 250 Inst 3 General Intent: Deletion Of Terms “General” And “Specific” Intent
  • F 250 Notes
    • F 250 Note 1 Concurrence Of Act And General Intent
    • F 250 Note 2 Does Due Process Require Consideration Of Intoxication And/Or Mental Impairment In Determining All Mental Elements Of The Charge?
    • F 250 Note 3 Concurrence Of Act And Intent Requirement Of Causal Connection
    • F 250 Note 4 Act-Intent/Mental State Concurrence: Standard Of Prejudice
  • F 251 Union Of Act And Intent: Specific Intent Or Mental State (Case Law Discussing This Instruction)
    • F 251 Inst 1 Specific Intent Or Mental State: Applicability To Multiple Acts And Course Of Conduct
    • F 251 Inst 2 Modification For Offenses Requiring Both Specific Intent And Mental State
    • F 251 Inst 3 Union Of Act And Intent Applies To Act Or Conduct
    • F 251 Inst 4 Union Of Act And Intent: Aiding And Abetting Allegation
    • F 251 Inst 5 Union Of Act And Intent: Deletion Of Terms “General” And “Specific” Intent
  • F 251 Notes
    • F 251 Note 1 Concurrence Of Act and Intent: Specific Intent And Murder
    • F 251 Note 2 Delineation Of Specific Intent Must Be Requested (PC 20)
    • F 251 Note 3 Concurrence Of Act And Intent Requirement Of Causal Connection.
    • F 251 Note 4 Act—Intent/Mental State Concurrence: Standard Of Prejudice
    • F 251 Note 5 Priors Committed Prior To Age 14: Jury Must Be Instructed On PC 26 Re: Appreciation Of Wrongfulness
  • F 251 Revision History and Commentary
  • F 252 Union of Act And Intent—General And Specific Intent Together (Case Law Discussing This Instruction)
    • F 252 Inst 1 General Intent: Applicability To Multiple Acts And Course Of Conduct
    • F 252 Inst 2 General Intent: Knowledge Element
    • F 252 Inst 3 Specific Intent Or Mental State: Applicability To Multiple Acts And Course Of Conduct
    • F 252 Inst 4 Modification For Offenses Requiring Both Specific Intent And Mental State
    • F 252 Inst 5 Union Of Act And Intent Applies To Act Or Conduct
    • F 252 Inst 6 Union Of Act And Intent: Aiding And Abetting Allegation
    • F 252 Inst 7 Union Of Act And Intent: Deletion Of Terms “General” and “Specific” Intent
  • F 252 Notes
    • F 252 Note 1 Concurrence Of Act And Intent Requirement Of Causal Connection.
    • F 252 Note 2 Act-Intent/Mental State Concurrence: Standard Of Prejudice
    • F 252 Note 3 Gun Use Only Requires General Intent
    • F 252 Note 4 Priors Committed Prior To Age 14: Jury Must Be Instructed On PC 26 Re: Appreciation Of Wrongfulness
  • F 253 Union of Act And Intent: Criminal Negligence
    • F 253 Inst 1 Union of Act and Intent: Criminal Negligence – Applicability To Multiple Acts Or Course Of Conduct
    • F 253 Inst 2 Union of Act and Intent: Criminal Negligence – Act Must Be “Committed”
    • F 253 Inst 3 Instruction Should Be Tailored To Facts
    • F 253 Inst 4 Union Of Act And Intent: Deletion Of Terms “General” and “Specific” Intent
    • F 253 Note 1 Union of Act and Intent: Criminal Negligence – CALCRIM Cross-References And Research Notes
  • F 254-299 Reserved
  • Register as New User
  • Contact Us
© James Publishing, Inc. (866) 72-JAMES