How have courts interpreted the general intent instruction in the arson statute?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Fabris, 31 Cal.App.4th 685, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 667 (Cal. App. 1995):
The application of this instruction to the acts condemned by the arson statute could not have caused juror confusion. "Since the general intent instruction is dependent upon 'that which the law declares to be a crime,' its effect turns upon the substantive elements of the offense to which it is applied." (People v. Lyons (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1456, 1462, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 763; see also People v.
Page 677
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Is there any instructional error in general criminal intent instruction used by the trial court to include counts 4 and 7 in the General Criminal intent instruction? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the instructions in the context of manslaughter instructions in cases where the instruction was limited or limited? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the specific intent instructions under the standard aiding and abetting instructions? (California, United States of America)
Does a party have to complain to the Court on appeal that an instruction in a criminal case instructing a jury to convict a defendant of possessing all six firearms was "too general or incomplete"? (California, United States of America)
Does section 125.3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure apply to the construction of the statute, and if so, does the court have jurisdiction to interpret the interpretation of the law? (California, United States of America)
How has the court interpreted instructions regarding intent to kill as an element of an attempted murder? (California, United States of America)
When an agency adopts a new interpretation of a statute and rejects an old interpretation of the statute? (California, United States of America)
Can an appellant seek review of an instruction in the Superior Court of Appeal where the original instruction was found to have made errors that could have been cured in the trial court? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review applied by appellate courts to a decision by a trial court to instruct or not to instruct a jury? (California, United States of America)
