People v. Billings

15 Citing cases

  1. People v. Ulloa

    180 Cal.App.4th 601 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 30 times
    Recognizing the existence of a possessory interest as a potential defense

    The court is not required to instruct on its own motion as to specific points of evidence. ( People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 428 ( Billings).) "In determining whether error has been committed in giving or not giving jury instructions, the reviewing court must consider the instructions as a whole.

  2. People v. Stone

    No. E040929 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2007)

    The court must also assume that the jurors are intelligent beings and capable of understanding and correlating all instructions which are given to them. [Citation.]” (People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 427-428 (Billings), disapproved on other grounds in People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 642, fn. 22; see also People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1111-1112 (Martin).) The two CALCRIM No. 2511 instructions given to the jury in this case, adequately instructed the jury on the offense of a felon in possession of a gun.

  3. People v. Stanley

    39 Cal.4th 913 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 794 times
    Finding sympathy for defendant a valid race-neutral reason for peremptory challenge

    As such, the claim is waived on appeal. ( People v.Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 433 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 392], overruled on other grounds in People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 642, fn. 22 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189]; see People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 486-487 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373].) Juror C. was the only juror who read the article; he confirmed there had been no discussion with any of the other jurors about the fact that an article about the case had appeared in the morning paper.

  4. People v. Lucas

    12 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,637 times
    Concluding defendant failed to show counsel were incompetent for omitting to move to suppress evidence on the chain of custody grounds

    The issue here, however, is not jury misconduct but a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise the issue of juror misconduct at trial. (See People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 433 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 392] [claim of juror misconduct waived if not raised in trial court], overruled on other grounds in People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 642, fn. 22 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189]; see also People v. Wisely (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 939, 947 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 291].) Obviously, counsel did not merely forget to challenge the juror, but decided not to do so.

  5. People v. Karis

    46 Cal.3d 612 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 1,158 times
    In People v. Karis, 46 Cal.3d 612, 250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1658, 104 L.Ed.2d 172 (1989), without holding an evidentiary hearing, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and denied the petition.

    The People, however, offered declarations by several jurors which established that the misconduct occurred during the penalty phase of the trial, and the initial juror executed a second declaration stating that if the word "mitigating" had been included in a penalty phase instruction it was during that phase of the trial that the definition was given. In People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 392], on which the People rely, the parties agreed that a dictionary might be sent into the jury room when requested by the foreman. The Court of Appeal held that the parties' agreement waived any error, but also concluded that the use of the dictionary was not misconduct.

  6. People v. West

    No. E041559 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2008)

    It is presumed the jury properly followed the court’s instructions. (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852; People v. Bonin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 659, 699, overruled on other grounds in People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 823, fn. 1; People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 428, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 642, fn. 22.) Furthermore, the prosecutor argued to the jury that she had proven the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, and explained to the jury that to find defendant guilty, the jury must find she proved the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

  7. People v. Fitzpatrick

    2 Cal.App.4th 1285 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 144 times
    Rejecting argument that “jury must apply an objective standard of provocation to reduce first degree murder to second degree murder”

    In reviewing a challenge to jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole. ( People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 427-428 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 392], disapproved on another point in People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 642 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189].) We assume that the jurors are capable of understanding and correlating all the instructions which are given to them.

  8. People v. Lonergan

    219 Cal.App.3d 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 15 times

    (5) In determining if the trial court erred in giving or not giving jury instructions, the reviewing court must consider the instructions as a whole and must assume that the jurors are intelligent beings capable of understanding and correlating all the instructions which are given to them. ( People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 427-428 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 392], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 642, fn. 22 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189]; People v. Martin (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 148, 158 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 655], judgment vacated sub nom. In re Martin (1987) 44 Cal.3d 1 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 263, 744 P.2d 374].

  9. People v. Reynolds

    205 Cal.App.3d 776 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 19 times

    In reviewing these instructions as a whole (cf. People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538-539 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251]; People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 427-428 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 392]), we conclude that prejudicial instructional error occurred. Where possession is an element of the offense, the trial court has a duty to submit to the jury, with proper instructions, the question of whether the defendant had knowledge of the object's presence.

  10. People v. McCowan

    182 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 32 times
    In McCowan, the trial court ruled, in reliance on sections 25, 28, and 29, that the defense could not "`ask any psychiatrists or other expert on mental condition a question as to whether or not die defendant had the capacity to form a mental state in issue here on the date of the alleged commission of the offense.'"

    We assume that the jurors, properly instructed, were capable of understanding the instructions and that no confusion resulted. ( People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 428 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 392].) III