California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Martinez, B302433 (Cal. App. 2020):
"A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. [Citation.] In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court's instructions caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution. [Citations.] The challenged instruction is viewed '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.'" (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579.)
We disagree with defendant's contention that the trial court delivered an "incomplete" instruction on count 1 when it
Page 13
failed to define "sexual abuse." Trial courts have a duty to define technical terms that have meanings peculiar to the law, but "no duty to clarify, amplify, or otherwise instruct on commonly understood words or terms used in statutes or jury instructions. 'When a word or phrase "'is commonly understood by those familiar with the English language and is not used in a technical sense peculiar to the law, the court is not required to give an instruction as to its meaning in the absence of a request.'" [Citations.] A word or phrase having a technical, legal meaning requiring clarification by the court is one that has a definition that differs from its nonlegal meaning. [Citation.]'" (People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1015, 1022-1023.)
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.