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

Return to CALJIC Part 5-8 – Contents

F 8.85(d) Inst 1

Extreme Mental Or Emotional Disturbance (PC 190.3(d)):

Reasonable Person Standard Inapplicable

*Add to CJ 8.85(d):
Evidence has been received for the purpose of showing that the defendant was under the influence of extreme [mental] [emotional] disturbance at the time that the offense was committed. You may not discount that evidence even if you conclude that a reasonable person would not have been under such influence. Your only concern in this regard is whether the defendant was actually under the influence of such a disturbance.

Points and Authorities

People v. Holt (97) 15 C4th 619, 710-11 [63 CR2d 782], Werdegar concurring, held that the “reasonable person” standard is inappropriate in determining whether a person actually acted under extreme mental or emotional disturbance under PC 190.3(d). The persuasive force of the proffered mitigating evidence may not be discounted due to a belief that a reasonable person would not have been under such influence. To do so would be to fail to accord the defendant’s mitigating evidence the weight to which it was legally entitled in violation of the Federal Constitution (8th and 14th Amendments). Clarification of this distinction is particularly important in cases where instruction on the reasonable person standard was given elsewhere in the instructions (e.g., heat of passion, self-defense.)

It is essential under the 8th Amendment of the federal constitution that the jury consider all relevant mitigating evidence. (See Lockett v. Ohio (78) 438 US 586 [57 LEd2d 973; 98 SCt 2954].)

  • Register as New User
  • Contact Us
© James Publishing, Inc. (866) 72-JAMES