Home

Table of Contents

 Table of Forms

 Law Journals-US

Authoritative Dictionary

Courts

  Thesaurus
         

iLaw Dictionary

    USAConstitution Law
         

California

    Law Students-USL
         

Law Dictionary

    BankruptcyCode.US
         

Trial-Right to Jury Instructions

    United States Law.US

US Codes

 State Codes

Evidence

 Law Students-USL

 Federal Civil Procedure-Main Page

 Medical Dictionaries
                                                 
      
A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page
   

   
                 
                 

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Trial-Right to Jury Instructions on All Theories of Case

(Munoz v. City of Union City)
A - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- K to Z

 

Trial-Right to Have Jury Instructed on Law Applicable to All Theories of Case
(Munoz v. City of Union City)
 

The jury was instructed that a police officer may use “reasonable force” to make a detention, prevent escape or overcome resistance and that an officer “who uses unreasonable or excessive force in making a detention commits a battery upon the person being detained.”  (BAJI No. 7.54 (1997 rev.).)  The jury was further instructed: “A police officer may use deadly force to detain only if he has a reasonable belief there is an immediate risk that the person whose detention is sought will cause death or serious bodily harm.  [¶]  If you find that the defendant Tod Woodward did not have a reasonable belief that Lucilla Amaya posed an immediate risk of death or serious bodily harm to her father or daughter, you will find that his use of deadly force was unreasonable.  [¶]  If you find that the defendant Tod Woodward did have a reasonable belief that Lucilla Amaya posed an immediate risk of death or serious bodily harm to her father or daughter you will find his use of deadly force reasonable.”  Appellants complain that these instructions did not inform the jury that the test for reasonableness is an objective one and therefore permitted the jury to accept what appellants refer to as Reedy’s “subjective, after-the-fact, perfect hindsight ‘opinions’ regarding the reasonableness of Woodward’s use of force.”

            “ ‘ “Parties have the ‘right to have the jury instructed as to the law applicable to all their theories of the case which were supported by the pleadings and the evidence, whether or not that evidence was considered persuasive by the trial court.’  [Citation.]  ‘A reviewing court must review the evidence most favorable to the contention that the requested instruction is applicable since the parties are entitled to an instruction thereon if the evidence so viewed could establish the elements of the theory presented.  [Citation.]’  [Citation.]”  (Maxwell v. Powers (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1607 . . . .)’  (Logacz v. Limansky [(1999)] 71 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1157.)”  (Galvez v. Frields (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420.)

            However, the requesting party’s right is to nonargumentative instructions.  (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572; McMahon v. Albany Unified School Dist. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1289.)  “The court should state rules of law in general terms, and avoid reciting matters of evidence.  If the instruction embodies detailed recitals of fact drawn from the evidence, in such a manner as to constitute an argument to the jury in the guise of a statement of the law, it is improper.  The matter may be entirely legitimate as argument by counsel, for when so used, the jury knows that it comes from an interested source and may weigh and consider it accordingly.  But it is seriously objectionable to have the same matter injected into the court’s charge, which, as the jurors are informed, is binding upon them.  [Citations.]”  (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Trial, § 323, pp. 366-367.)  Additionally, “it is error to give, and proper to refuse, instructions that unduly overemphasize issues, theories or defenses either by repetition or singling them out or making them unduly prominent although the instruction may be a legal proposition.  [Citations.]”  (Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 675, 718.)

Munoz v. City of Union City A0958467/23/04

Jul 23 2004 A095846
[PDF] [DOC]
Munoz v. City of Union City 7/23/04 CA1/2 Detailed case information

spacer bar
 


A - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- K to Z
California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents    
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents   
Thesaurus Directory  
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents  


Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score | UN Treaty Reference Guide
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents |
California Injury (Torts) Law | Yaazoo!
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | United Statea News | California Discovery
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com |
Library of Congress | California Appeals
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US |
starUnited States News
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law | Advanced Trial Handbook | California Legal Forms
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission | California Writs
California Civil Procedure.Com | Advanced Trial Handbook-Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq.
Yaazoo! | Abogados Latinos | Agogados De Accidentes  | United States History | Spanish