People v. Jeter

44 Citing cases

  1. People v. McShane

    No. E039494 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    On cross-examination, defendant stated that he had shot the shotgun “a couple hundred” times at cans and crows, and knew it was a deadly weapon. Prior to oral argument, the People notified this court that counsel may refer to the following cases, which “explain the applicable standard of review for cases in which an inconsistent instruction was submitted to the trier of fact”: Middleton v. McNeil, supra, 541 U.S. 433, People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, Harris, supra, 9 Cal.4th 407, People v. Jeter (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1212 (Jeter), and People v. Maurer (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1121. The victim fell about 20 feet away from the son.

  2. Vazquez v. Spearman

    Case No.: 18-CV-2900 JLS (MSB) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2020)

    " We are unpersuaded by Vasquez's attempt to analogize the instructions given here to the instructional defect addressed by the courts in People v. Beck (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 518 and People v. Jeter (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1212 (Jeter). In Beck, the defendant was charged with attempted murder and the court instructed that attempted murder required the defendant to have committed the actus reus while "'harbor(ing) express malice aforethought, namely, a specific intent to kill unlawfully another human being,'" which the Beck court concluded expressed with "sufficient clarity the requirement that attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill."

  3. Barrera v. Muniz

    No. 2:14-cv-2260 JAM DB P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    "[M]alice and malice aforethought are not synonymous. [. . .] Malice aforethought as used in section 4500 has the same meaning as it has for murder convictions, requiring either an intent to kill or 'knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life.'" (People v. Jeter (2005) 125 Cal. App. 4th 1212, 1216, citing People v. St. Martin (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 524, 536-537.)Imperfect self-defense requires an "'honest but unreasonable belief that it is necessary to defend oneself from imminent peril to life or great bodily injury."

  4. Calderon-Silva v. Hollen

    No. 2: 14-cv-0052 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2015)

    The assault offense defined in section 4500 requires the specific intent of malice aforethought. (People v. Jeter (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1217 (Jeter).) "The words malice aforethought in section 4500 have the same meaning as in sections 187 and 188. [Citations.] Thus the rules that have evolved regarding malice aforethought as an element in a charge of murder apply to section 4500."

  5. People v. McClurg

    D072442 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2018)

    The parties disagree on the applicable standard of review to determine whether the error was prejudicial. In his opening brief, McClurg relied on People v. Jeter (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1212 (Jeter) to contend the purported instructional error is subject to review under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman), such that error is harmless only when it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained. In contrast, the People contended the reasonable probability standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson) applied, such that the error is reversible when there is a reasonable probability it affected the outcome of trial.

  6. People v. Vasquez

    D070638 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 19, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    " We are unpersuaded by Vasquez's attempt to analogize the instructions given here to the instructional defect addressed by the courts in People v. Beck (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 518 and People v. Jeter (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1212 (Jeter). In Beck, the defendant was charged with attempted murder and the court instructed that attempted murder required the defendant to have committed the actus reus while " 'harbor[ing] express malice aforethought, namely, a specific intent to kill unlawfully another human being,' " which the Beck court concluded expressed with "sufficient clarity the requirement that attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill."

  7. People v. Barrera

    A134600 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2013)

    "[M]alice and malice aforethought are not synonymous. [Citation.] Malice aforethought as used in section 4500 has the same meaning as it has for murder convictions, requiring either an intent to kill or 'knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life.' " (People v. Jeter (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1216, citing People v. St. Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524, 536-537.) Imperfect self-defense requires an " 'honest but unreasonable belief that it is necessary to defend oneself from imminent peril to life or great bodily injury."

  8. People v. Silva

    C069793 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2012)

    The assault offense defined in section 4500 requires the specific intent of malice aforethought. (People v. Jeter (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1217 (Jeter).) "The words malice aforethought in section 4500 have the same meaning as in sections 187 and 188. [Citations.] Thus the rules that have evolved regarding malice aforethought as an element in a charge of murder apply to section 4500."

  9. People v. Matthews

    No. F057995 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 6, 2011)

    The assault offense defined in section 4500 requires the specific intent of malice aforethought. (People v. Jeter (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1217 (Jeter).) “The words malice aforethought in section 4500 have the same meaning as in sections 187 and 188. [Citations.] Thus the rules that have evolved regarding malice aforethought as an element in a charge of murder apply to section 4500.”

  10. People v. Cole

    No. A120544 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2008)

    The Attorney General concedes that this was error. (See People v. Jeter (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1216-1217.) However, it is argued that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.