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 3500 POST-TRIAL: CONCLUDING

F 3501 Unanimity: When Generic Testimony Of Offense Presented

TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 3501 Inst 1 Unanimity: Generic Testimony—Enumeration Of Acts
F 3501 Inst 2 Concurrence Of Act And Intent
F 3501 Inst 3 When Proof Must Show Specific Act: Alibi Defense (PC 288.5)
F 3501 Note 1 Resident Child Molester Statute Held Constitutional (PC 288.5)
F 3501 Note 2 Juror Unanimity: Resident Child Molester: No Unanimity
F 3501 Note 3 Failure To Instruct On Unanimity As To Multiple Acts Of Child Molesting As Reversible Error
F 3501 Note 4 Multiple Counts: Continuous Sexual Abuse And Individual Sexual Offenses—PC 288.5 Precludes Convictions On Both Continuous Sexual Abuse Charge And Individual Sexual Offenses

Return to Series 3500 Table of Contents.


F 3501 Inst 1 Unanimity: Generic Testimony—Enumeration Of Acts

See FORECITE F 3500.2 Inst 2.

WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:

FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]


F 3501 Inst 2 Concurrence Of Act And Intent

See FORECITE F 251 Inst 3.

WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:

FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]


F 3501 Inst 3 When Proof Must Show Specific Act: Alibi Defense (PC 288.5)

*Add to CC 3501:

The defendant has offered an alibi for the period of time alleged in the information. In light of the defendant’s alibi defense, the time the alleged offense was committed becomes material. In determining whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof, you must limit your consideration to the time that the prosecution contends the offense was committed. If you have a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed during the period of time alleged in the information, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal.

Points and Authorities

Where the prosecution has selected a specific time or period of time during which the offense was committed and where the defense has presented alibi evidence for that period of time, the defendant is entitled to an instruction telling the jury “to confine their consideration to the time that the prosecution evidence shows the offense was committed.” (People v. Jones (1973) 9 C3d 546, 557; see also People v. Seabourn (1992) 9 CA4th 187, 192-94; People v. Brown (1960) 186 CA2d Supp 889, 890-95; People v. Waits (1936) 18 CA2d 20, 21; People v. Morris (1906) 3 CA 1, 7-11.) The failure to require the prosecution to meet its burden of proving the commission of the offense on the specific date alleged in the information violates the defendant’s federal constitutional rights to trial by jury and due process. (6th and 14th Amendments; People v. Barney (1983) 143 CA3d 490, 497.)

Identification Of Parties—See FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1.

WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:

FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]
FORECITE CG 12.2 [Duplicity/Unanimity]

In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.

NOTES

Variance As To Date Between Information And Evidence At Trial—Because the precise time of a crime need not be declared in the information (PC 955), a variance between information and proof is usually not fatal to the prosecution and the jury may base its verdict upon the date shown by the evidence. (See People v. Jennings (1991) 53 C3d 334, 358; People v. Cox (1968) 259 CA2d 653, 661.) However, the variance is material if the preliminary hearing failed to provide the correct date and the defendant was misled into relying upon an alibi for the date alleged in the information. (Cox, 259 CA2d at 660.) In such a case, the defense must ask for a continuance to preserve the issue for appeal. (Ibid.)

CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 4.71.5b.


F 3501 Note 1 Resident Child Molester Statute Held Constitutional (PC 288.5)

In People v. Gear (1993) 19 CA4th 86, 92-93, the court held that the lack of a juror unanimity requirement in PC 288.5 violates neither the defendant’s right to juror unanimity nor to due process notice of the specific acts which constitute the offense. (See also People v. Grant (1999) 20 C4th 150, 156.)

CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 4.71.5 n2.


F 3501 Note 2 Juror Unanimity: Resident Child Molester—No Unanimity

There is no constitutional impairment to legislative elimination of juror unanimity as to which of 3 acts a jury relies on to convict resident child molester per PC 288.5. (People v. Higgins (1992) 9 CA4th 294, 301-04; but see FORECITE F 1120.)

[Research Note: See FORECITE BIBLIO 17.01.]

CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 17.01 n11.


F 3501 Note 3 Failure To Instruct On Unanimity As To Multiple Acts Of Child Molesting As Reversible Error

Where the prosecution relies on “generic testimony” of child molestations per People v. Jones (1990) 51 C3d 294, the failure to require juror unanimity is error. (People v. Matute (2002) 103 CA4th 1437.)

CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 4.71.5 n4.


F 3501 Note 4 Multiple Counts: Continuous Sexual Abuse And Individual Sexual Offenses—PC 288.5 Precludes Convictions On Both Continuous Sexual Abuse Charge And Individual Sexual Offenses

See FORECITE F 10.42.6 n9.

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