Error and/or relief
The trial court prejudicially erred and violated his due process rights by failing to provide a self-defense instruction as to the lesser included battery offense. We reverse defendant’s misdemeanor simple battery conviction.
First Holding:
The trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence.
Authority:
People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 239
Second Holding:
We independently review claims of instructional error. We examine the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579
People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218
People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229
Third Holding:
Under appropriate circumstances a trial court may be required to give a requested jury instruction that pinpoints a defense theory of the case. But a trial court need not give a pinpoint instruction if it is argumentative , merely duplicates other instructions , or is not supported by substantial evidence. However, a defendant bears the burden of requesting a pinpoint instruction; a trial court has no sua sponte duty to provide one.
Authority:
People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 558
People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 824
Fourth Holding:
Furthermore, a trial court must instruct the jury sua sponte on general principles of law applicable to the case, including any defense supported by substantial evidence that is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case. In deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the evidence, but only whether there is evidence which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt.
Authority:
People v. Villanueva (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 41, 49
People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 195
People v. Orlosky (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 257, 269-270
Fifth Holding:
Generally, a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language. But that rule does not apply when the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law. Moreover, a failure to object to instructional error will not result in forfeiture if the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights. In this instance, the trial court on its own modified the instruction on the lesser included offense of battery by omitting the element of lack of self-defense, and directing the jury to consider self-defense solely on the question of whether he acted in self-defense on the greater offense of inflicting corporal injury. The instruction affirmatively and erroneously precluded the jury from considering the self-defense evidence in connection with the lesser included battery charge.
Authority:
People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012
People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579
People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 60
Sixth Holding:
The California Supreme Court has yet to determine whether a trial court’s failure to instruct on a requested affirmative defense instruction supported by substantial evidence is federal constitutional error or state law error. We need not resolve the question in this case, because the error was prejudicial even under the state law standard. Under that standard, reversal is warranted if it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error. In this context, a probability does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility.
Authority:
People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 199
People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 984
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [federal harmlessness standard]
People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836-837 [state law harmlessness standard]
Richardson v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1040, 1050