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 Practice Guide Table of Contents

PG III(C)  Prosecution’s Pinpoint Instructions. 

 

In People v. Carter (93) 19 CA4th 1236, 1253, fn 11 [23 CR2d 888], the court observed that “no right of the defendant is infringed by allowing the prosecutor to request an instruction which focuses a jury on factors which are relevant to its determination of the issues for decision.”  However, People v. Wright (88) 45 C3d 1126, 1137 [248 CR 600] holds that a defense pinpoint instruction is improperly argumentative if it directs the jury’s attention to specific evidence and “impl[ies] the conclusion to be drawn from that evidence.” (People v. Harris (89) 47 C3d 1047, 1098, fn 31 [255 CR 352].)  Therefore, a functionally equivalent prosecution pinpoint instruction must therefore be held improperly argumentative as well.  “There should be absolute impartiality as between the People and the defendant in the matter of instructions ….”  (People v. Moore (54) 43 C2d 517, 526-27 [275 P2d 485]; accord, Reagan v. U.S. (1895) 157 US 301, 310 [39 LEd 709].)

See FORECITE

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