Legal Opinion

People v. Matthews

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided February 28, 2019No. B286202PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHoffstadt, J.

*794A trial court in a criminal case is charged with properly instructing the jury on the elements of all crimes and enhancements. ( People v. Tidwell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 82, 87, 89 Cal.Rptr. 58, 473 P.2d 762.) Does the trial court violate its duty to instruct-and potentially entitle the defendant to a retrial-if the court (1) tells the jury that the People have to prove an element that the law does not require, and (2) fails to properly define that element? We conclude that a mistake pertaining to a superfluous element does not constitute instructional error. In light of this conclusion, as well as…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  2. People v. BrevermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Musacchio v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  4. People v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Clark v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2021
  2. Darby v. Sisyphian, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
  3. People v. Bell CA5California Court of Appeal · 2020
  4. Rankins v. United Parcel Service, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API