People v. Sanchez

4 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. DAVEGGIO & MICHAUD

    Appellant, Michelle Lyn Michaud, Opening Brief

    Filed March 19, 2010

    It is error to give an instruction which correctly states a principle of law which has no application to the facts of the case. [Citations.]” (People v. Sanchez, supra, 30 Cal. 2d at p. 573.) 60 This Court further stated in Rollo: “In the future, however, in any case in which the court has properly admitted both a prior felony conviction of the defendant for the purpose of impeachment and ‘other crimes’ evidence on a substantive issue, the cautionary instruction on the latter point should identify the evidence to which it relates.

  2. BELL (STEVEN M.) ON H.C.

    Petitioner’s Reply to Informal Response

    Filed September 28, 2010

    Green, 27 Cal. 3d at 55 n.44 (referencing the “settled rule” that “when the force used against the victim results in death, the defendant’s intent to rob will not support a conviction of felony murderifit arose after the infliction of the fatal wound.”); People v. Sanchez, 30 Cal. 2d 560, 569 (1947) (to constitute felony murder, “the killer must at the time of the killing, have had the purpose to rob (although not necessarily the purpose to kill)”); see also People v. Lewis, 43 Cal. 4th 415, 464 (2008); People v. Davis, 36 Cal. 4th 510, 564-65 (2005). 78 In Mr. Bell’s case, jury instructions regarding the intent necessary for - felony murder informed the jurors that the unlawful killing of a person during the commission of the crime of robbery “is also murder of the first degree when the perpetrator had the specific intent to commit such crime.”

  3. PEOPLE v. POTTS

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed April 30, 2009

    "[A] trial judge should be diligent in refraining from burdening the jury and the record with inapplicable instructions ...." (People v. Sanchez (1947) 30 Cal.2d 560, 673.) The giving of an instruction which is a correct statement oflaw but is inapplicable under the facts is error, although it is generally harmless because it is likely to be understood by the jury as mere surplusage.

  4. PEOPLE v. JONES (WILLIAM ALFRED)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed September 15, 2005

    Further, “i]t is error to give an instruction which correctly states a principle of law which hasnoapplication to the facts of the case.” (People v. Sanchez, supra, 30 Cal.2d at p. 572.) Where, as here, evidenceof prior crimes is admitted for impeachment purposes, and other prior crimes evidence also has been admitted pursuantto Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), the trial court should instruct the jury as to which evidenceis referred to in the CALJIC No. 2.