Cupp v. Naughten

5 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. LIGHTSEY (CHRISTOPHER)

    Respondent's Brief

    Filed November 15, 2007

    Moreover, the failure to give an instruction does not violate the defendant's constitutional rights unless the omission "so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process." (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72, quoting Cupp v. Naughten, supra, 414 U.S. at p. 147.) "An omission or an incomplete instruction, is less likely to be prejudicial than a misstatement of the law."

  2. PEOPLE v. TRUJEQUE (TOMMY ADRIAN)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed March 23, 2012

    The right to present a defense necessarily includesthe right to have the jury instructed on the defenserelied upon, for “the right to present a defense would be meaningless werea trial court completely free to ignore that defense when givinginstructions.” (Taylor v. Withrow (6" Cir. 2002) 131 288 F.3d 846, 851-852 [refusal to instruct on self-defense]; see also Conde v. Henry (9" Cir. 1999) 198 F.3d 734, 739 [reversal required wheretrial court’s rulings prevented defendant from arguing his theory of defense to jury, violating defendant’s rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel]; Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 [in the context ofthe record as a whole, erroneous or denied instructions may “so infect[] the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process,” quoting Cupp v. Naughten (1973) 414 U.S. 141, 147].) As amatter of California law as well, “‘a defendant has a constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence,”and “an erroneous failure to instruct on a lesser included offense constitutes a denial of that right.” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1264, quoting People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 475; accord People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th610, 645; People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 335 (Wickersham), disapproved on other grounds in People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 200 (Barton); People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 720, overruled on other points in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684, fn. 12 and-in People v. Breverman Barton disapproved Wickersham insofar asit treated unreasonable self-defense as a “defense” rather than as a form of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter and concludedthatthe trial court was not obligatedto instruct the jury on the theory because the defense had not re

  3. The People, Respondent,v.Otis Boone, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed October 17, 2017

    1 On l tpp ll. ]\'m(ghten, 414 U.S. 141,146 (1973). STATEMENT OF FACTS Jntn>ducrion .

  4. PEOPLE v. DAVEGGIO & MICHAUD

    Appellant, Michelle Lyn Michaud, Opening Brief

    Filed March 19, 2010

    ’”) 7 See also United States v. Peden (5th Cir. 1992) 961 F.2d 517, 520, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 945 (1992) (noting that when a jury feels unsure 240 Further,it is well established that state law evidentiary rulings and/or jury instructions will violate due process if they render a particular trial fundamentally unfair. (Lisenba v. California, supra, 314 U.S.at p. 236; see also Cupp v. Naughten (1973) 414 U.S. 141, 147; Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974) 416 U.S. 637, 642; Jammal v. Van de Kamp, supra, 926 F.2d at p. 920. This standard independently constitutes clearly established federal law, and the reasonablenessofits application to various fact-patterns is susceptible to review under the AEDPA.

  5. PEOPLE v. CLARK (WILLIAM CLINTON)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed June 17, 2005

    D. Introduction ofJury Instruction Violated Appellant’s Right to Due Process and Heightened Capital Case Reliability A jury instruction violates due process whenit is so ailing that it has infected the entire trial. Cupp v. Naughten, (1973) 414 U.S. 141, 147. Estelle v. McGuire established that in order to determineif the introduction of a jury instruction has violated due process that the instruction “may not be judged in artificial isolation,” but must be considered in the context of the instructions as a whole andthetrial record.