WPC U +%)8 aHkxI6w+1WFZF":_Rvr31=A NnM]%wl|@ 5w?|=0 I/߸:c^3ܘ5 _ΓW֥?2H"he Ɓe;ƎHjX\)ffZ^;%BeikӲqWT-ݳ$$A* oypn^Ї:-2\ ddvaW3i5`cF7*n- Z,QWJ4!q-{`c᫭ I< ?|ӲDoO䠟ÙH\)X7>HbL{i,` 0  0U( 0} 0` 0% 0 0 0P 0 0 0E 0  0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0@ 0 0 0 0* 0 0l 0 0 0 ! 0! 0" 0>N# 0# 0$ 0f% 0H& 0*' 0 ( 0( 0) 02z* 0* 0:+ 0Y+ 0_;, 0 , 0- 0&/ B*,1 D/V1 1 1 D+1 01 D/3 04 064 05 0:!6 0^[6 0<6 1e6U6Z7U*7@7= @ @ @ A A A A A 0A 0DB B.CbKC SC 0teC 0tCFMD GG JU @J JyKyM';R bT vTvT 0NTTT(TTTT^ THP LaserJet 2200 Series PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS.,QK3:i+003|xU3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) 1)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#\  `&Times New Roman(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKP<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KP<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KP<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7C(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?Q%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7F(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dB)1dxdSearchTermSR;39436'dxd<:zTop of For7H(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?Q%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7F(X75+ ` hp x 5  B)2dxd0KS.SampleKP<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKP<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"# 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial 6 \:$'XXUSUS.,   @ @    2  ''  _ԀTheprimarypurposeofthesematerialsistofocusonprinciplesespeciallyrelevant  toissuessurroundingtheadequacyofthe_CALCRIM_Ԁinstructions,ratherthantoserveasa  primeroninstructionaldutiesgenerally.Foramorecomprehensivetreatmentofthescope  ofatrialcourts_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁinstructionalduties(and,conversely,ofthecategoriesof   pinpointinstructions,requiredonlyuponrequest),seeOConnell&_Soglin_, Preserving  InstructionalErrorforAppellateReview(Mar.2006),availableon_FDAP_Ԁwebsite:g''4r 8!oO  5     gXXg'_www.fdap.org_/downloads/seminarcriminal/_PreservingInstructionalErrorforAppellateReview.pdf_6$oO8  7 #f#g'XgX丅#   #'g'#XX'Ԁ#'XX#  \:$'XXUSUS.,   @ @    5  ''  _ԀLarav.Ryanwasoneofthoserarecasesmeetingthat absolutecertaintystandard.  Althoughthetrialcourthaderroneouslyinstructedonimpliedmaliceasanalternative  groundforattemptedmurder,thejurorsseparatepremeditationfindingconclusively  establishedthattheyhadrelieduponthelegallyvalidexpressmalicetheory.Lara,455F.3d   at1087.SDU_58StarPageciteas((Cite as: 18 Cal.4th 470, *503, 957 P.2d 869, **891, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, ***202)SDU_42SR;8554SR;8556SR;8562SR;8564(G2:$ !XXUSUS.,          0  (#$  0   d- -SDU_14(L2$ !XXUSUS.,  (L2$ !XXUSUS.,   < \:$'XXUSUS.,   @ @    1  ''  _ԀPortionsofthisarticlehavebeenadaptedandupdatedfrom StandardsofReview  andPrejudiceforInstructionalErrorbyJ.BradleyOConnell&_Rene_ԀE.Torres(Jan.  1995), StandardsofReversalonAppealinCriminalCasesby_Rene_ԀE.Torres(May2000),  and PreservingInstructionalErrorforAppellateReview,byJ.BradleyOConnell&  Jonathan_Soglin_Ԁ(March_2006)._SR;2137  \:$'XXUSUS.,   @ @    3  ''  _Ԁ''BecauseColemanaroseonafederalhabeaspetition,itwasgovernedbythe_Brecht_  standard,requiringa substantialandinjuriousinfluenceontheverdict,ratherthanthe  Chapmanstandardapplicableondirectappeal.Cf._Brecht_Ԁv._Abrahamson_(1993)507U.S.  619.#''#SR;2547(A Z(Times New Roman SR;2549 o \:$'XXUSUS.,   @ @    6  ''  _ԀBecauseBradleyaroseonafederalhabeaspetition,ratherthandirectappeal,itwas  insteadgovernedbythe_Brecht_standard,requiringa substantialandinjuriousinfluenceon  theverdict.Cf._Brecht_Ԁv._Abrahamson_(1993)507U.S.619.  \:$'XXUSUS.,   @ @    7  ''  _ԀUnfortunately,inalateropinion,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtstated, Anyerror  infailingtoinstructonimperfectdefenseofothersisstatelawerroralone,andthussubject  ...totheharmlesserrortestarticulatedinWatson.Peoplev._Randle_(2005)35Cal.4th987,  1003.The_Randle_opiniondidnotmentiontheunresolveddueprocessissueraisedinJustice  _Kennard_s_Breverman_dissent.Butarguablythebroadstatementin_Randle_wasdictum:  BecausetheCourtfoundtheerrorin_Randle_prejudicialevenunderaWatsonanalysis,itwas   notnecessaryfortheCourttoaddressthefederalconstitutionalquestion.  \:$'XXUSUS.,   @ @    4  ''  _Seethe9thCircuitsrecentopinionin_Pulido_Ԁv._Chrones_,487_F.3d_Ԁ669(9thCir.2007),  inwhichacertpetitionispresentlypending.(_USSC_Ԁ07544.)SR;2552SDU_16(O$http://www.fdap.org28 !'XXUSUS.,  _   R2Q'_8'dd8  APPELLATESTANDARDSOFREVIEWANDPREJUDICE  FORINSTRUCTIONALERROR: L ToolsforLitigatingInstructionalIssuesinthe_CALCRIM_ԀEra#'QR2k# H  }'PreparedbyBradOConnellandupdatedbyFranTernu s_ c ]#  1      _   StaffAttorneys,FirstDistrictAppellateProject   January2008#'}#  2 g'' (33 " 3"     32  I  .3  0    INTRODUCTION 3,݌X (#(# Ќ  0  [_F]rom_Ԁourappellateperspective,ofthemanyandvariedcontentionsoftrialcourt X  errorweareaskedtoreview,nothingresultsinmorecasesofreversibleerrorthan X  mistakesinjuryinstructions.Peoplev._Thompkins_(1987)195_Cal.App_.3d244,252. X  Generally,anyappellateclaimmustclearthreehurdles!(1)establishingthatits X  cognizableonappeal(_i_..e.,thatitsnotbarredbywaiver),(2)establishingthaterror X occurred,and(3)establishingthattheerrorrequiresreversal.Oneachofthese X subjects,theappellatestandardsgoverninginstructionalclaimsaregenerallymore X favorabletothedefensethanthoseforotherkindsofappellateclaims.These X materialswilltouchverybrieflyon_cognizability_Ԁconcernsandwillfocusprimarily X onthesecondandthirdtopics!thestandardofreviewfordeterminingwhetheran X instruction(ortheomissionorrefusalofaninstruction)waserroneousandthe X standardfordeterminingwhetheraninstructionalerrorwasprejudicialorharmless.X(#(# 0  Mostofthetopicsinthesematerialsarealreadyquitefamiliartoappellate X practitioners.Theprimarypurposeofthesematerialsistohighlightinstructional X standardswhichmaybeespeciallyrelevanttoreviewofissuessurroundingthe X _CALCRIM_Ԁinstructions. X(#(# 0  Aswithanytypeofissue,itisessentialthat,wheneverpossible,appellatecounsel "X characterizeaninstructionaldefectasafederalconstitutionalclaim,ratherthanjust #X statelawerror.First,eveninthecontextofthedirectstateappeal,recognitionofthe $X instructionaldefectasfederalconstitutionalerrorwilltriggeramuchmorefavorable %X  prejudice/harmlesserrorstandard.StatelawerrorsarereviewedundertheWatson &X!  test:Reversalisrequiredonlyifitis"reasonablyprobable"aresultmorefavorable 'X"! tothedefendantwouldhavebeenreachedhadtheerrornotoccurred.Peoplev.  Watson(1956)46Cal.2d818.Butmostfederalconstitutionalerrorsaresubjecttothe  lessforgivingChapmantest!theburdenisonstatetoshow beyondareasonable  doubtthattheerrorhadnoeffectontheverdict.Chapmanv.California(1967)386  U.S.18.Additionally,asdiscussedfurtherinPartIV,somecategoriesof  instructionalerrorarereviewedunderevenmorerigorousteststhanthetraditional   Chapmanformulation. (#(# 0  Second, federalizingtheclaimederrorthroughoutthestateappellateprocessis   necessaryto exhaustionoftheclaimforpurposesofanyfuturefederalhabeas   corpuspetition.Evenassumingtheappellatebriefsotherwisethoroughlyidentifythe   problemswithaninstruction,afailuretospecifythattheerroralsoinfringedafederal   constitutionalrightmayforfeitthedefendantsopportunitytoobtainfederalhabeas   reviewofthatclaim.SeeBaldwinv.Reese(2004)541U.S.27. (#(# " 3"   32  II  .3  0    _COGNIZABILITY_ԀOFINSTRUCTIONALISSUES. 3=݌(#(# Ќ  0  InCaliforniaappellatepractice,the_cognizability_Ԁofaninstructionalissuecanbe  viewedastheflipsideofthesubstantivequestionofthescopeofthetrialcourts  instructionalduties.Atrialcourtmustinstruct_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁonthelegal principles  closelyandopenlyconnectedwiththefactsbeforethecourt,andwhicharenecessary  forthejury'sunderstandingofthecase.Peoplev._Breverman_(1998)19Cal.4th142,  154.Theseincludethereasonabledoubtstandard(_CALJIC_Ԁ2.90,_CALCRIM_Ԁ220),  theelementsofthechargedoffense,thedefinitionofany targetoffensenecessary  toatheoryofliability(e.g. naturalandprobableconsequences,#'g'R#Peoplev.g''Ԁ_Prettyman_  (1996)14#'g'Z#XX'Cal.4th#'XX#g''Ԁ248),juryunanimityastotheincidentonwhichtheconvictionis  based(_CALJIC_Ԁ17.01;_CALCRIM_Ԁ3500),andlesserincludedoffensessupportedby  substantialevidence.Ifaninstructioncomeswithinthat_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁcategory,the  defendantmaychallengetheadequacyoftheinstructionsonappeal,regardlessof   whetherheobjectedtotheinstructiongiven,requestedaninstruction,orotherwise ! raisedtheissuebelow."(#(# 0  Conversely,iftheinstructionisdeemeda pinpointor amplifyinginstruction,the $  courtisonlyrequiredtodeliverituponrequest,andtheabsenceofarequestwillbar %!! raisingtheissueonappeal.Mostcautionaryorlimitinginstructionsaredeemed &""  pinpoint,asaremanymoresubstantiveinstructionswhichrelatemoregeneral '## instructionstocrucialtypesofevidence(e.g.,alibi,factorsrelevanttoeyewitness ($$  identification,materialityofpriorthreatsandviolencetoselfdefense,relevanceof )%% intoxicationtospecificintent,etc.)_R ]#  2      _Ԁ(#(#  A.0  InstructionsGiven.#'g'1#g''(#(# 0  Asapracticalmatter,itisusuallypossibletochallengethevalidityofanyinstruction  givenbyvirtueofPen.Code1259: Theappellatecourtmayalsoreviewany   instructiongiven,refusedormodified,eventhoughnoobjectionwasmadetheretoin   thelowercourt,ifthesubstantialrightsofthedefendantwereaffectedthereby.   Although1259onlyauthorizesreviewofinstructionsaffecting substantialrights,   thatdetermination necessarilyrequiresanexaminationofthemeritsoftheclaim"at   leasttotheextentofascertainingwhethertheassertederrorwouldresultinprejudice   iferroritwas.Peoplev.Andersen(1994)26_Cal.App_.4th1241,1249. (#(# 0  Moreover,aninstructionactuallygivenbythetrialcourtisgenerally_reviewable_Ԁon   appeal,evenifthatinstructionordinarilywouldnotcomewithinthecourts_sua_  _sponte_Ԁduties. Evenifthecourthasno_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁdutytoinstructonaparticular  legalpoint,whenitdoeschoosetoinstruct,itmustdosocorrectly.Peoplev.Castillo  (1997)16Cal.4th1009,1015;accordPeoplev.Hudson(2006)38Cal.4th1002,  1012.(#(# 0  Theseprinciplesmayproveespeciallyimportanttothereviewofissuessurrounding  _CALCRIM_Ԁinstructions.In_CALJIC_,thebasicinstructionlistingtheelementsofan  offensewouldoftenbefollowedbyseveralinstructionsonmorespecializedpoints;  sometimesthelatterinstructionswouldbeconsideredeither pinpointor   amplifyinginstructionsrequiredonlyonrequest.Incontrast,_CALCRIM_s  approachseemstobetodrawalltheprinciplesapplicabletoaparticularoffenseinto  asingleomnibusinstruction.Forexample,_CALCRIM_sbasicrobberyinstruction,  No.1600,coverspointsspreadoverfour_CALJIC_Ԁinstructions(_CALJIC_Ԁ9.40,9.40.2,  9.40.3,9.41).Insomeinstances,thisstructureshouldmakeiteasiertoraise   instructionalclaims:Becausethetypical_CALCRIM_Ԁinstructionismore ! comprehensivethanits_CALJIC_Ԁcounterpart,itshouldoftenbepossibletoframethe " argumentasachallengetothevalidityoftheinstructionactuallydelivered,rather  thanasacomplaintregardingtheomissionofsomesupplementalinstruction.(#(# 0  B.0` (#(# AmplifyingInstructionsvs.TermsRequiringDefinition` (#` (# 0  Anotheroftstatedprincipleofinstructionalreviewmayposeheadachesfor   challengesto_CALCRIM_Ԁinstructions.Inmanyinstances,thecontroversy   surroundingtheadequacyofaparticular_CALCRIM_Ԁinstructionwillnotinvolveany   genuinedebateoversubstantivelaw.Thatis,therewillnotbeanydisagreement   betweentheprosecutionandthedefenseastowhattheelementsofaparticular   offenseare.Instead,manyargumentswillfocusontheadequacyofthe_CALCRIM_   instructionstocommunicatethesesometimesarcanelegalprinciplestolayjurors!   thatis,howthejurorswilllikelyinterpretthelanguageofparticular_CALCRIM_   instructions.SeePartIIIB,infra(discussingthe reasonablelikelihoodstandard   ofreview).(#(# 0  Theproblemisthis:Ifaninstructionmisstatesthelaw,theissueshouldbe  cognizableunder1259andPeoplev.Castillo,asdiscussedabove.Butitmaybe  moredifficulttochallengeaninstructionwhichis correctasfarasitgoes,but  shouldhavebeenmoreclearorshouldhavefleshedoutapointparticularlyimportant  totheissuesattrial.Suchargumentsmayrunafouloftherulethat,ifthebasic  instructionsareotherwisecorrect,theonusisonthedefensetorequestany   amplifyingor clarifyinginstructions. Generally,apartymaynotcomplainon  appealthataninstructioncorrectinlawandresponsivetotheevidencewastoo  generalorincompleteunlessthepartyhasrequestedappropriateclarifyingor  amplifyinglanguage.Peoplev._Guiuan_(1998)18Cal.4th558,570;seealso,e.g.,  Peoplev._Guerra_(2006)37Cal.4th1067,1134;Peoplev.Andrews(1989)49Cal.3d  200,218;.(#(# 0  Butatrialcourtdoeshavea_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁdutytoclarifythemeaningofatermwhich ! hasatechnicalorspecializedlegalmeaningwhichmaynotbeknowntolayjurors. " Significantly,that_definitional_Ԁdutyappliesnotonlytolegaltermsofart,suchas #  assault,butalsotomorecommontermswhichmayhavespecializedmeaningsfor $  purposesofaparticularcriminalstatute: Thatobligationcomesintoplaywhena %!! statutoryterm doesnothaveaplain,unambiguousmeaning,hasa particularand &"" restrictedmeaning[citation],orhasatechnicalmeaningpeculiartothelaworan '## areaoflaw[citation].[Citation.] Awordorphrasehavingatechnical,legal ($$ meaningrequiringclarificationbythecourtisonethathasadefinitionthatdiffers )%% fromitsnonlegalmeaning.[Citations.]Peoplev.Hudson(2006)38Cal.4th1002, *&& 1012,emphasisinoriginal.+''(#(# Ї0  Recentcasesillustratethatapplicationofthoseprinciplescanyieldcounterintuitive  holdingsregardingwhichtermsrequire_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁdefinitions.Forexample,the  SupremeCourthasrequired_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁdefinitionoftheterm likelyinSexually  ViolentPredator(_SVP_)trials,because likelymaybeusedflexiblytocoverarange  of_expectability_Ԁfrompossibletoprobableand [_n]ot_Ԁallofthesedictionary  definitionsoflikelyareconsistentwiththeparticularandtechnicalmeaningthe   _SVPA_Ԁassignsthatterm.Peoplev._Roberge_(2003)29Cal.4th979,988.Similarly,   theCourtrecentlyrequired_sua_Ԁ_sponte_ԀdefinitionoftherequirementofVehicleCode   2800.1andrelatedstatutesrequiringthatthepursuingpolicecarbe distinctively   marked.In commonparlance,such distinguishingfeaturesasaredlightora   sirenmightbeconsideredsufficient,butundertheCourtsconstruction,thesestatues    requiremarkingsinadditiontothepresenceofaredlightandasiren.Hudson,   supra,38Cal.4that1012.Conversely,however,otherrecentcaseshaveheldthat   certainseeminglytechnicaltermsdidnotrequirefurtherelaboration.Forexample,   inaprosecutionformisappropriationofpublicfunds(Pen.Code424),theterms   authorityoflawand notauthorizedbylawdidnotrequire_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁdefinitions,  andtheabsenceofarequestfor clarifyinginstructionswaivedtheissue.Peoplev.  Bradley(2006)142_Cal.App_.4th247,259260;seealso,e.g.,Peoplev.Horning  (2004)34Cal.4th871,908909(no_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁdutyforfurtherdefinitionofterm   immediatepresenceinstandardrobberyinstruction).(#(# " 3"   37G2  III  .3  0    STANDARDSOFREVIEW!DETERMININGINSTRUCTIONALERROR 37GdG݌(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;;H0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#  DeNovoReview;;HhH݌` (#` (# Ќ  0  Incontrasttomanykindsofcommonappellateissues,appellatereviewofan  instructionalissuedoesnotentailanydeferencetothetrialcourt.Instructional  claimsaresubjecttoan independentor denovostandardofreview.Peoplev.  _Manriquez_(2005)37Cal.4th547,581,584."Whetherornottogiveanyparticular   % D %DKinstruction% E %E-KԀinanyparticularcaseentailstheresolutionofamixedquestionoflawand ! factthat,webelieve,ishoweverpredominantlylegal.Assuch,itshouldbeexamined " withoutdeference."Peoplev._Waidla_Ԁ(2000)22Cal.4th690,733.#(#(#    `     h      p   ";"  ;M0  2  B  .3  0` (#(#  ReasonableLikelihoodStandardofReviewforAmbiguousInstructions;M#''Larav.Ryan,455F.3dat1085,quoting  #''#''Keatingv.Hood,#''y#''Ԁ191F.3d1053,1063(9thCir.1999);&#''#''_Ficklin_Ԁv._Hatcher_,#''B#''Ԁ177F.3d  1147,1152(9thCir.1999)(emphasisinallthreecases)#''#.(#(# 0  Absolutecertainty(Laraat1086)ofcourse,representsanevenmorerigorous  standardthanChapman.Thatis,itrequiresastillgreaterdegreeofcertitudebefore  areviewingcourtcandeclaretheerrorharmless,becausethecommonunderstanding   isthata reasonabledoubtburdenofproofdoesnotrequire absolutecertainty.Cf. ! Victorv.Nebraska,511U.S.1,1213(1994)( absolutecertaintyisunattainablein " humanaffairs).S ]#  5      ׀#(#(# Ї0  Distinctionbetween legaland factualinsufficiency.󀀀BoththeU.S.Supremeand  CaliforniaSupremeCourtshavedrawnadistinctionbetweentheorieswhichare  invalidbecausetheyarelegallyunauthorized(e.g.,anonqualifyingpredicatefelony  forfelonymurder)andthosewhichareerroneousbecausetheyarelackinginfactual  support.Griffinv.UnitedStates(1991)502U.S.46;Peoplev._Guiton_Ԁ(1993)4  Cal.4th1116.Therulerequiringreversalwheretherecorddoesnotrevealtheactual   basisforthejurysverdictappliesonlywherethedefectwasoneof legal   insufficiency."`[_T]he_Ԁterm"legalerror"meansamistakeaboutthelaw,asopposed   toamistakeconcerningtheweightorfactualimportoftheevidence.'"_Guiton_,supra,   at1125,quotingGriffin,supra,at474. (#(# 0  Wheretheerrorismerelyoneof factualinsufficiency,theoppositeanalysisapplies:   "Iftheinadequacyofproofispurelyfactual,ofakindthejuryisfullyequippedto   detect,reversalisnotrequiredwheneveravalidgroundfortheverdictremains,   absentanaffirmativeindicationintherecordthattheverdictactuallydidrestonthe  inadequateground."_Guiton_,supra,at1129,emphasisadded.(_Guiton_itselfwasa  Health&_Saf_.Code11352case,inwhichtheinstructionsincluded transportation  or saleofcocaineasgroundsforconviction,buttherewasinsufficientevidenceof  acompletedsale.TheSupremeCourtagreedthatsubmissionofthe salealternative  waserror,butvieweditasoneof factualinsufficiency.Becausetherewas  sufficientevidencethat_Guiton_Ԁtransportedcocaine,butinsufficientevidencethathe  soldit,theSupremeCourtassumedthatthejurorsreliedonthefactuallysupported  transportationtheory.)(#(# ";"  ;q0  2  C  .3  0` (#(#  OmissionofElementsorDefectsinDescriptionofElements;q݌` (#` (# Ќ  0  Dueprocessrequirestheprosecutiontoproveeachelementoftheoffensebeyonda  reasonabledoubt.Accordingly,anyinstructionwhichomits,misstates,orotherwise  removesanelementofthechargeviolatesdueprocess,aswellastheSixth   Amendmentrighttojurytrial.SeegenerallyUnitedStatesv._Gaudin_(1995)515U.S. ! 506.Mostsubstantiveerrorsintheinstructionsdefinitionsofchargedoffensescan " becharacterizedaseitheromissionsor_misdescriptions_Ԁoftheelements.#(#(# 0  Omissionofanelement.BoththeU.S.andCaliforniaSupremeCourtshaveheldthat %!! omissionorremovalofanelementisnotastructuraldefectandissubjecttoharmless &"" erroranalysisundertheChapmanstandard._Neder_Ԁv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S. '## 1;Peoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470.Both_Neder_andFloodwerecasesinwhich ($$ theinstructionsomittedanelementwhichwasnotreasonablysusceptibletodispute  undertherespectivecircumstancesofthecases!in_Neder_,whetherthefailureto  reportover$5millionsatisfiedthe materialityelementoftaxfraud;and,inFlood,  whethertheuniformedpoliceofficersfromwhomFloodwasfleeingwere peace  officers,asrequiredfor_Veh_.Code2800.3.Predictably,eachopinionfoundthe  instructionalerrorharmlessunderChapman. (#(# 0  Itiseasytorelegatetheholdingsof_Neder_andFloodtothe soundbitethat   Chapmanappliestoomissionofanelementandthentoproceedwithatraditional   Chapmanharmlesserroranalysis.Butthe_Neder_opinion,inparticular,deserves   closerscrutinyforitindicatesthatamuchmorerigorousformofChapmananalysis   appliestothiscategoryoferror: (#(# 0  8` (#(#Inacasesuchasthisone,whereadefendantdidnot,andapparently   couldnot,bringforthfactscontestingtheomittedelement,% T %T6answering  thequestionwhetherthejuryverdictwouldhavebeenthesameabsent  theerrordoesnotfundamentallyunderminethepurposesofthejury  trialguarantee.[]Ofcourse,safeguardingthejuryguaranteewilloften  requirethatareviewingcourtconductathoroughexaminationofthe  record.If,attheendofthatexamination,thecourtcannotconclude  beyondareasonabledoubtthatthejuryverdictwouldhavebeenthe  sameabsenttheerrorforexample,wherethedefendantcontestedthe  omittedelementandraisedevidencesufficienttosupportacontrary  findingitshouldnotfindtheerrorharmless.[]Areviewingcourt  makingthisharmlesserrorinquirydoesnot..."becomeineffecta  secondjurytodeterminewhetherthedefendantisguilty."[Citation.]  Ratheracourt,intypicalappellatecourtfashion,askswhetherthe  recordcontainsevidencethatcouldrationallyleadtoacontraryfinding  withrespecttotheomittedelement._Neder_,supra,527U.S.at19,   emphasisadded.!` `  0  Underafaithfulreadingof_Neder_,areviewingcourtshouldfindomissionofan # elementharmlessonlyincasessuchasFloodand_Neder_itself,wheretheomitted $  elementwasnotreasonablysusceptibletodispute.But,iftheevidencedoesposea %!! factualquestionconcerningthatelement,theappellatecourt shouldnotfindtheerror &"" harmless.Ifthereisconflictingevidence(orconflictinginferencesfromthe '## evidence)concerningthatelement,thatconflictshouldcompelafindingofprejudice ($$ underthe_Neder_formofChapmanreview,anditwillnotsufficeforthereviewing )%% courttodeclarethat overwhelmingevidencesupportsthecontestedelement.*&&(#(#  +'' 0  Omissionof _subtantially_Ԁallelements?󀀀_Neder_andFloodeachinvolvedomission  ofasinglediscreteelementofthecharge.Previously,inPeoplev.Cummings(1993)  4Cal.4th1233,13111315,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthadreversedrobbery  convictionswheretherobberyinstructionsweresodeficientthattheyomitted   substantiallyall(4outof5)oftheelementsofthatoffense.Inspurningthestates  invitationof harmlesserror,theCourtobservedthat none[ofthepriorU.S.   SupremeCourtcases]suggeststhataharmlesserroranalysismaybeappliedto   instructionalerrorwhichwithdrawsfromjuryconsiderationsubstantiallyallofthe   elementsofanoffenseanddidnotrequirebyotherinstructionsthatthejuryfindthe   existenceofthefactsnecessarytoaconclusionthattheomittedelementhadbeen   proved.Cummings,supra,at1315.Similarly,inanotherpre_Neder_case,theNinth   Circuitfoundastructuraldefectwherethetrialcourtentirelyfailedtoinstructonthe   elementsofacharge.Harmonv.Marshall(9thCir.1995)69F.3d963,966. (#(# 0  InitslaterFloodopinionpermittingChapmanreviewofomissionofasingleelement,  theCaliforniaSupremeCourtwascarefultodistinguishbothitsownCummings  opinionandtheNinthCircuitsHarmondecision. Wehavenooccasioninthiscase  todecidewhethertheremaybesomeinstancesinwhichatrialcourt'sinstruction  removinganissuefromthejury'sconsiderationwillbe% U %U% V theequivalentoffailingto  submittheentirecasetothejuryanerrorthatclearlywouldbeastructuralrather  thanatrialerror.[Citation;footnote comparingCummings,Harmon,andSullivan  v.Louisiana.]Flood,supra,18Cal.4th%VԀat503.(#(# ";"  ;0  2  D  .3  0` (#(#  Offensesvs.Enhancements;݌` (#` (# Ќ  0  _Apprendi_!federalconstitutionalsignificanceofenhancements.InPeoplev._Wims_  (1995)10Cal.4th293,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatfailuretoinstructon  aweaponenhancementwasmerelystatelawerror,subjecttotheWatson reasonable  probabilitytestofprejudice,becausetherewasnofederalconstitutionalrighttojury   trialonasentenceenhancement.AstheCaliforniaSupremeCourthassubsequently ! acknowledged,the_Wims_holdingcouldnotsurvive_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey(2000) " 530U.S.466,whichheldthattheSixthAmendmentrighttojurytrialappliedtoany # nonrecidivistenhancementwhichincreasedthesentenceabovethemaximum $  otherwiseallowedfortheconvictionoffensealone.SeePeoplev._Sengpadychith_ %!! (2001)26Cal.4th316.&""(#(# 0  Inthewakeof_Apprendi_,aninstructionalerrorconcerningtheelementsofan ($$ enhancementwillusuallybereviewedunderthesamefederalconstitutional )%% principles,includingChapman_Neder_harmlesserroranalysis,asacomparableerror *&& involvingtheelementsofanoffense.Butthereareseveralquirkswhichmaytake +'' someenhancementsoutofthescopeofthoseprotections,whichflowfromlimitations  oruncertaintiesintheU.S.SupremeCourts_Apprendi_jurisprudence.(#(# 0  Relationofenhancementtomaximumsentenceforoffense.AstheCalifornia  SupremeCourtobservedinapost_Apprendi_opinion,theapplicabilityoftheSixth  Amendmenttoasentencingenhancement!andhencetheapplicabilityoffederal   constitutionalprinciples(includingChapmanreview)toaninstructionalerroronthat   charge! dependsonwhethertheenhancementprovisionincreasesthemaximum   possiblepenaltyfortheunderlyingcrime.Peoplev._Sengpadychith_(2001)26   Cal.4th316,324.Aconventionaldeterminatesentenceenhancement,whichconcerns   thecircumstancesofthecurrentoffense(e.g.,weaponuse,inflictionofgreatbodily   injury,etc.)andconsistsof anadditionaltermofimprisonmentaddedtothebase   term(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.405_(c_)(enhancementdefinition))plainlycomes   within_Apprendi_becauseitcanresultinasentenceinexcessoftheuppertermforthe   underlyingconviction.(#(# 0  Todate,however,theU.S.SupremeCourthasadheredtoadistinctionbetween  _Apprendi_typeenhancementswhichincreasethemaximumpunishmentand   mandatoryminimumprovisionswhichincreasetheminimumsentenceavailable.  Atleastundercurrentlaw,thelatterprovisionsdonotimplicatetheSixthAmendment  because,thoughthosefindingsmaysubstantiallyelevatethelowendofthe  sentencingrangeforanoffense,theydonotincreasethemaximumterm.SeeHarris  v.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545.(#(# 0  Peoplev._Sengpadychith_(2001)26Cal.4th316,dramaticallyillustratestheanomalies  flowingfromthisdistinction,becausethesameinstructionalerrorregardingthegang  enhancement(Pen.Code186.22)wassubjecttodifferentstandardsofprejudice,  dependingontherelationshipbetweentheenhancementandthesentencingonthe  respectivecounts.Withrespecttomostunderlyingoffenseswithdeterminateterms,   section186.22functionsasaconventionalenhancementbyaddinganadditionalterm, ! consecutivetothesentenceontheoffenseitself.(_Subd_.(b)(1).)Foranothercategory " offelonies,thestatuteauthorizesanindeterminatetermof lifeinlieuofthe # otherwiseapplicabledeterminateupperterm.(_Subd_.(b)(4).)Becauseboththose $  provisionsincreasedthemaximumtermfortheunderlyingcounts,the_Apprendi_jury %!! rightapplied,sotheChapmanstandardofprejudicedidaswell.But,forcrimes &"" alreadypunishablebylife,thestatutebarsparole untilaminimumof15calendar '## years% W %W(havebeenserved."(_Subd_.(b)(5).) [_F]or_Ԁthesefelonies,thegangenhancement ($$ provisiondoesnotincreasethelifetermfortheunderlyingoffense.Consequently,in )%% thiscategoryofcasesinstructionalerroronanelementofthegangenhancement *&& provisiondoesnotviolatethefederalConstitution[citing_Apprendi_],butonly +'' Californialaw,makingtheerror_reviewable_Ԁunderthestandardwearticulatedin  Watson[citation]._Sengpadychith_,supra,26Cal.4that327,emphasisinoriginal.(#(# 0  The PriorConvictionException._Apprendi_anditsprogenyapplyonlytosentencing  provisions otherthanthefactofapriorconvictionwhichincreasethetermbeyond  thestatutorymaximumprescribedfortheunderlyingoffense._Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey   (2000)530U.S.466,488489,emphasisadded;_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington(2004)542   U.S.296,301;UnitedStatesv.Booker(2005)543U.S.220,244.Thisisknownas   the _Almendarez_ԄTorresexception,after_Almendarez_ԄTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)   523U.S.224.Thoughthereareclearly5votestooverrule_Almendarez_ԄTorres(see   JusticeThomasconcurrencein_Apprendi_),theSupremeCourthassofardeclined   invitationstotakeuptheissue.Consequently,asmattersstandnow,afailureto   requirejurydeterminationofsuchrecidivistenhancementsas strikes, serious   felonyenhancements,andpriorprisontermenhancementsgenerallydoesnotpose   afederalconstitutionalviolation.But,evenleavingasidewhetherthe_Almendarez_Ԅ  Torresexceptionwillremaingoodlaw,thereisconsiderableuncertaintyoverthe  scopeofthatexception!i.e.,overtheprecisedividinglinebetween_Apprendi_and  _Almendarez_ԄTorres.(#(# 0  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourt,however,hasreadthe_Almendarez_ԄTorresexception  broadly:Whentheleastadjudicatedelementsofaprioroffensedonotautomatically  qualifyitasa seriousor violentfelony,determinationoftheenhancement  allegationfrequentlyrequiresconsiderationofadditionalmaterialsfromthe record  ofconvictionshowingthefactualdetailsoftheprioroffense.SeegenerallyPeople  v._Guerrero_(1988)44XX'Cal.3d#'XXy5#Ԁ343.But,despitethefactualcharacterofthisinquiry,  theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasheldthatthereisnoSixthAmendmentrighttojury  determinationofwhethertheunderlyingcircumstancesofthepriorsatisfytherelevant  enhancementdefinition(e.g.,personalweaponuse).Peoplev.McGee(2006)38  XX'Cal.4th#'XXN7#Ԁ682. (#(# 0  Completeremovalofanenhancementfromthejury.Underthe_Apprendi_Ԅ_Blakely_Ԁ " lineofcases,anenhancementorothersentencingfactorwhichincreasesthe # maximumtermisdeemedequivalenttoanelementofthechargedoffenseandmust $  besubmittedtothejuryanddeterminedunderthereasonabledoubtstandard. %!! However,bythesametoken,acompletefailuretosubmitanenhancementtothejury &"" isnotviewedasastructuraldefect.Becausetheenhancementisviewedasan '## additionalelementofthechargedoffense(ratherthanasaseparatecriminaloffense ($$ initsownright),theerroneousremovalofthatelementfromthejuryisconsidered )%% comparabletotheomissionofanelement(asin_Neder_Ԁv.U.S.)andissubjecttothe *&& Chapmanstandard.Washingtonv._Recuenco_(2006)__U.S.__,126_S.Ct_.2546.+''(#(# Ї";"  ;<0  2  E  .3  0` (#(#  RefusaltoInstructonDefenses;<<݌` (#` (# Ќ  0  AstheCaliforniaSupremeCourtrecentlyacknowledged, Wehavenotyet  determined% X %X>Ԁwhattest% Y %Y)>Ԁofprejudiceappliestothefailure% Z %Zk>Ԁtoinstruct% [ %[>Ԁonanaffirmative  defense.[Citation]Peoplev._Salas_(2006)37Cal.4th967,984;seealsoPeoplev.  Simon(1995)9Cal.4th493,507fn.11.Inthepast,thatCourtreviewederroneous   failuretoinstructonadefenseunderthestrict _Sedeno_test,whichrequiredreversal   unlessthejurynecessarilyresolvedtheomittedquestionunderother,correct   instructions.Peoplev._Sedeno_(1974)10Cal.3d703;see,e.g.,Peoplev.Stewart   (1976)16Cal.3d133,141142;Peoplev._Lemus_(1988)203_Cal.App_.3d470,478   480.However,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasrecentlyrepudiatedthe_Sedeno_test   inothercontexts,anditisdoubtfulthatitwouldpreserveitsuseforomitteddefenses.   Cf.Peoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470(federalChapmanreviewofomissionof   anelement);Peoplev._Breverman_(1998)19Cal.4th142(stateWatsonreviewof   omissionofalesserincludedoffense).(#(# 0  TheCaliforniacourtshavenotresolvedwhetherthereisanyfederalconstitutional  righttoinstructionsonanaffirmativedefense.However,thereisnoquestionover  thematterinthefederalcircuits. Asageneralproposition,adefendantisentitledto  aninstructionastoanyrecognizeddefenseforwhichthereexistsevidencesufficient  forareasonablejurytofindinhisfavor.[Citations]Mathewsv.UnitedStates  (1988)485U.S.58,63.AlthoughMathewswasadirectappealfromafederal  criminalconvictionanddidnotexplicitlycouchitsholdinginconstitutionalterms,  federalcourtshavereadit(andotherSupremeCourtopinions)asrecognizingadue  processentitlementtoinstructionsonthe defensetheoryofthecase:(#(# 8  0`   Thus,thestatecourt'sfailuretocorrectlyinstructthejuryonthe  defensemaydeprivethedefendantofhisdueprocessrighttopresent  adefense.[Citations].Thisissobecausetherighttopresentadefense   "wouldbeemptyifitdidnotentailthefurtherrighttoaninstruction ! thatallowedthejurytoconsiderthedefense."[Citation.]Bradleyv. " Duncan(9thCir.2002)315F.3d1091,1099.#` `  0  Indeed,inBradley,theNinthCircuitdeemedtheconstitutionalmagnitudeoftheright %!! toinstructionsonthedefensetheoryofthecaseassowellestablishedthatthe &"" defendantpetitionerwasentitledtoreliefevenunderthe_AEDPA_Ԁstandardgoverning '## federalhabeasreviewofastateconviction!thatis,itfoundthestateappellatecourts ($$ _affirmance_ԀofBradleysconvictionrepresentedan unreasonableapplicationof )%% clearlyestablishedfederallaw.Bradley,supra,at11001101(see28U.S.C. *&& 2254(d)(1)).+''(#(# Ї0  Assumingthatthereisadueprocessrighttoinstructionsonadefensetheory  supportedbytheevidence,anerroneousrefusalofaninstructiononanaffirmative  defenseshouldatleastbesubjecttoChapmanprejudicereview,whentheerroris  raisedondirectappeal._i ]#  6      _ԀHowever,manyfederalcasessuggestthatanevenless  forgivingstandardthanChapmanapplies.Underthosecases,thedenialofrequested  instructionsonadefensetheorywhichhasevidentiarysupportisprejudicialerror,   unlessotherinstructionsadequatelycoveredthatdefense.(E.g.,UnitedStatesv.Ruiz   (11thCir.1995)59F.3d1151,11541155;UnitedStatesv.Allen(2ndCir.1997)127   F.3d260,265;UnitedStatesv._Montanez_(1stCir.1997)105F.3d36,39.) Theright   tohavethejuryinstructedastothedefendantstheoryofthecaseisoneofthose   rightssobasictoafairtrialthatfailuretoinstructwherethereisevidencetosupport   theinstructioncanneverbeconsideredharmlesserror.UnitedStatesv.Escobarde   Bright(9thCir.1984)742F.2d1196,1201. (#(# 0  Althoughthesecircuitcasesgenerallypredate_Neder_Ԁv.UnitedStates(1999)527  U.S.1,theyparallelthe_Neder_opinionscautionarynotesonthelimitsofharmless  errorreviewofomittedelements.As_Neder_stated,omissionofanelementcannot  beheldharmlesswherethatelementwascontested._Neder_,supra,at19.Because  atrialcourthasadutytoinstructonallelementsoftheoffenseineverycase,there  willbecases,suchas_Neder_itself,inwhichaomissionofanelementwillbeharmless  becausethatelementwasnotsusceptibletodispute.However,sincethedutyto  instructonanaffirmativedefenseonlyarisesifthereisevidentiarysupportforthat  defense,anerroneousrefusalshouldrarelyifeverbesalvageablethroughharmless  erroranalysis.(#(# ";"  ;X0  2  F  .3  0` (#(#  OmissionorRefusalofInstructionsonLesserIncludedOffenses;XX݌` (#` (# Ќ  0  _Breverman_:abandonmentofthestate_Sedeno_standard.FormerlyCaliforniacourts  reviewederrorsintheomissionortherefusaloflesserincludedoffenseinstructions   underanespeciallyrigorousprejudicestandardknownasthe _Sedeno_test.People ! v._Sedeno_Ԁ(1974)10Cal.3d703,721._Sedeno_wasessentiallyareversalpersetest " withanarrowlydrawnexception.Where_Sedeno_wasapplicable,aninstructional # errorrequiredreversalunlessthequestionposedbytheomittedinstructionwas $  necessarilyresolvedbythejury,adverselytothedefense,underother,correct %!! instructionsandverdicts._Sedeno_wasprincipallygroundedinthestateconstitutional &"" righttojurydeterminationofeverymaterialfact(Peoplev.Modesto(1963)59Cal.2d  722,730)(though,priortoPeoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470,theCalifornia  SupremeCourthadalsosometimesemployed_Sedeno_aspartofitsreviewofsuch  federalconstitutionalissuesasdefectiveinstructionsonelements).(#(# 0  InPeoplev._Breverman_Ԁ(1998)19Cal.4th142,theCaliforniaSupremeCourt   reaffirmeditslongstandingrulethatatrialcourtmustinstruct_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁonanylesser   includedoffensesupportedbysubstantialevidence.But,_Breverman_Ԁsubstantially   alteredtheprejudiceanalysisforthatspeciesoferrorbyoverrulingthe_Sedeno_   standard.After_Breverman_,thestatelawerrorinomittingalesserincludedoffense   instructionismerelysubjecttotheWatsonstandard,requiringreversalonlyifthere   isa reasonableprobabilitytheoutcomewouldhavebeendifferent. (#(# 0  Federalconstitutionalimplicationsoflesseroffenseinstructions.The_Breverman_   majorityalsoheldthatthereisnogeneralrighttolesserincludedoffenseinstruction  innoncapitalcases.Thereisalimitedfederalconstitutionalrighttoalesserincluded  offenseinstructionundersomecircumstancesincapitalcases.Beckv.Alabama  (1980)447U.S.625.Butthe_Breverman_majoritynotedthattheU.S.SupremeCourt  hadgiventhatrightaverynarrowconstructioneveninthecapitalcontext(e.g.,_Schad_  v.Arizona(1991)501U.S.624;Hopkinsv.Reeves(1998)524U.S.88)andhasnever  extendedtheBeckanalysistononcapitalcases.Inthisrespect,theCalifornia  SupremeCourtsviewisconsistentwiththatoftheNinthCircuit. Underthelawof  thiscircuit,thefailureofastatetrialcourttoinstructonlesserincludedoffensesin  anoncapitalcasedoesnotpresentafederalconstitutionalquestion.[Citation.]  _Windham_Ԁv._Merkle_Ԁ(9thCir.1998)163F.3d1092,1106.(#(# 0  Nonetheless,_Breverman_doesnotruleoutallpotentialgroundsfor federalizingthe  denialoflesserincludedoffenseinstructions._Breverman_specificallyaddressed!and  rejected!anargumentforextensionofBeckv.Alabamatononcapitalcases,andthat   istheonlyfederalconstitutionalissuewhichthe_Breverman_opiniondecided.There ! aretwootherpotentialfederalconstitutionalbasesforsuchinstructions:"(#(# 0  Uniquerelationshipbetweenvoluntarymanslaughterandmalice.󀀀The_Breverman_ $  majoritydeclinedtodecidewhethertheomissionofimperfectselfdefense %!! instructionsresultedinincompleteinstructionsonthechargedoffenseofmurder &"" becausethemajoritybelievedthatissuewasnotpresentedinthebriefing. '## _Breverman_,supra,19Cal.4that170171&_fns_.1819.ButJustice_Kennard_Ԁdid ($$ addressthatissueinherdissent.Shefoundthat,dueto theuniquerelationship )%% betweenmurderandvoluntary_manslaughter,_Ԁanerroneousfailuretoinstructonheat *&& ofpassionorimperfectselfdefenseviolateddueprocess.Because,underCalifornia +'' law,heatofpassionorimperfectselfdefensenegatesmaliceaforethought,afailure  toinstructthejurorsonthatdoctrineresultsinincompleteinstructionsonthemalice  elementofthechargedcrimeofmurder,contrarytoUnitedStatesv._Gaudin_(1995)  515U.S.506.Theerroralsorelievestheprosecutionofitsburden,under_Mullaney_  v.Wilbur(1975)421U.S.684,ofprovingbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthe  defendantdidnotkillintheheatofpassionorinimperfectselfdefense.See   _Breverman_,supraat187191(_Kennard_,J.,dissenting_opn_.).Justice_Kennard_s   dissentprovidesablueprintforthisargument.Additionally,becausethemajority   opiniondidnotaddressthe_Gaudin_Ԅ_Mullaney_Ԁissueonthemerits,the_Breverman_   opinionshouldnotbarraisingthatclaiminaCaliforniacourt.j ]#  7       (#(# 0  Interestingly,theU.S.SupremeCourtsopinionin_Middleton_v._McNeil_(2004)541   U.S.433,appearstoprovidesomeimplicitsupportforadueprocessargumentalong   thelinessketchedinJustice_Kennard_s_Breverman_dissent.Asdiscussedearlier,in   _McNeil_,theSupremeCourtfoundthatanerrorintheimperfectselfdefense  instructionsdidnotrequirereversalbecause,consideringtheinstructionsasawhole  andtheattorneysarguments,therewasno reasonablelikelihoodthejurors  misunderstoodthatdoctrine.ButtheveryfactthattheSupremeCourtwasaddressing  theadequacyofthoseinstructionsinthefirstplacereflectsitsapparentrecognition  thatdueprocessrequiredcorrectinstructionsonimperfectselfdefense. Ina  criminaltrial,theStatemustproveeveryelement% ` %`tzoftheoffense,andajuryinstruction  violatesdueprocessifitfailstogiveeffecttothatrequirement._McNeil_,supra,at  437.(#(# 0  EvenassumingthatJustice_Kennard_Ԁwascorrectinher_Breverman_dissent,thesame   uniquecharacteristicsofimperfectselfdefenseandheatofpassionwhichsupport  thatdueprocessanalysisalsoeffectivelyrestrictthatargumenttoomissionsofthose  groundsforvoluntarymanslaughter.Itishardtothinkofanyothercontextinwhich  theomissionoflesseroffenseinstructionsalsoresultsinincompleteinstructionson   theelementsofthechargedgreateroffense.(Forexample,assumingthatthecourt ! instructsadequatelyonthedefinitionof deadlyweapon,anerroneousfailureto " submitsimpleassaultasalesserincludedoffensedoesnotresultinincomplete  instructionsontheelementsofassaultwithadeadlyweapon.)(#(# 0  Denialofinstructionson defensetheoryofthecase.󀀀Thereisanother,potentially  broader,groundforfederalizingsomelesserincludedoffenseissues.Asnoted  earlier,federalcasesrecognizeadueprocessrighttoinstructionsonthe defense   theoryofthecase.E.g.,Bradleyv.Duncan(9thCir.2002)315F.3d1091.That   conceptisnotlimitedtoaffirmativedefenseslikeselfdefenseorentrapment.The   NinthCircuithasrecognizedthat the defensetheoryofthecasemayrequire   instructionsonalesserincludedoffense, wherethedefenseevidenceandarguments    aredirectedtoadistinctionbetweenthechargedandthelesseroffense._Conde_Ԁv.   Henry(9thCir.1999)198F.3d734._Conde_arosefromakidnapforrobbery   prosecution.TheNinthCircuitheldthatthedenialofdefenserequestedinstructions   onthelesseroffenseofsimplekidnapingdeprivedthedefendantofhis well   establishedconstitutionalright toadequateinstructionsonthedefensetheoryofthe  case.Id.at739.(Tobesure,therewereothercloselyrelatederrorsin_Conde_,  includingadefectintheinstructionsononeelementofrobbery.Butthestructureof  theopinionindicatesthattheNinthCircuitviewedthedenialofrequestedlesser  offenseinstructionsasadueprocessviolationinitsownright.)(#(# 0  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasnotruledoutthepossibilitythatrefusalofa  requestedlesserincludedoffenseinstructioncouldviolatedueprocessasadenialof  instructionsonthe defensetheory._Breverman_involvedatrialcourtsfailureto  deliver_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁinstructionsonagroundforalesseroffenseverdict.Thesamewas  trueofaclaimrejectedinarecentcapitalcase.TheCourtacknowledgedsuchfederal   defensetheoryopinionsas_Conde_Ԁv.HenryandDuncanv.Bradley,butfoundthem  distinguishable. ''Inthesecases,unlikethepresentone,theinstructionatissuewas  requestedbythedefense.Thecasesdonotsupportthepropositionthatatrialcourt's  failuretoinstructonalesserincludedoffense#'' #''_sua_Ԁ_sponte_#''H#''Ԁdeniesdueprocess.People   v.Rogers(2006)39Cal.4th826,872.!(#(# 0  WhileRogersfallsshortofanexplicitendorsementofthe_Conde_ defensetheory # viewofrequestedlesseroffenseinstructions,itdoesdemonstratethattheissue $  remainsopeninCalifornia#''׋#.Thus,contrarytotheAttorneyGeneralscommonrefrain, %!! _Breverman_isnotthefinalwordonthefederalconstitutionalimplicationsofrefusal &"" oflesseroffenseinstructions.EspeciallyinlightofRogersd_iscussion_Ԁof_Conde_and '## otherfederalcases,_Breverman_doesnotforecloseaCaliforniaappellatecourtfrom ($$ findingconstitutionalerrorandapplyingChapmantoarefusalofrequestedlesser )%% offenseinstructions.*&&(#(#  +'' 0  G.0` (#(#EvidenceEvaluationInstructionsAffectingFederalConstitutional  Rights!ChapmanReview` (#` (# 0  Instructionsontheelementsofcrimesandtheoriesofliabilityarenottheonly  instructions(orinstructionalomissions)whichmayposefederalconstitutionalissues.  Justasevidentiaryrulingsbeforeandduringtrialfrequentlyinvolveconstitutional   issues(e.g.,unlawfulsearch,selfincrimination,confrontation,etc.),theinstructions   relatingtothatevidenceanditspermissibleusesmayraisefederalissuesaswell.   Wheretheevidentiaryrulingwaserroneous,therelatedinstructionsmaycompound   theerror.Perhapsmoreimportantly,evenwhendamagingevidenceislegitimately   admissibleonsomelegitimateground(e.g.,impeachment),theremaystillbean   instructionalissueifthejurorsreceivedincorrectorinadequateguidanceonthe   purposesforwhichtheycouldconsidertheevidence. (#(# 0  Instructionalerrorswhichimplicatefederalconstitutionalrightsaregenerallysubject  tothetraditionalChapmantest("harmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt").The  exampleslistedbelowaresimplyillustrative.Anyinstructionalerrorwhichallows  jurorstouseevidence(orothertrialcircumstances)foranunconstitutionalpurpose  shouldbeacandidateforChapmanprejudicereview:(#(# ""  t0  0` (#(#2  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  ݀Instructionson OtherOffensest݌ (# (# Ќ  0   ` (a)Ingeneral,useof"otheroffenses"evidenceasproofofadefendant's  "character"orcriminalpropensityoffendsfederaldueprocessbecauseofthehistoric  commonlawproscriptionsagainstsuchevidence._McKinney_Ԁv.Rees(9thCir.1993)  993F.2d1378[evidentiaryerror].InPeoplev._Garceau_Ԁ(1993)6Cal.4th140,186  187,theCaliforniaSupremeCourt"assumedwithoutdeciding"thataninstruction  whichexplicitlyauthorizedjurorstoconsider"otheroffenses"evidenceasproofof  thedefendant's"character"was_reviewable_ԀundertheChapmanstandard.Butthe   CaliforniaSupremeCourtrejecteda_McKinney_typedueprocesschallengetoanew ! statute,_Evid_.Code1108,whichexpresslyallowsuseofprioroffensesas "  propensityevidenceinsexoffensecases.Peoplev._Falsetta_(1999)21Cal.4th903. # TheCaliforniacourtshaveappliedsimilarreasoninginupholdingaparallelstatute $  allowing propensityevidenceindomesticviolencecases,_Evid_.Code1109.See %!! Peoplev.Jennings(2000)81_Cal.App_.4th1301,1312;Peoplev.Price(2004)120 &"" _Cal.App_.4th224,240.However,outsidethecontextofthesediscretelegislatively '## recognizedcategoriesofcrimes!sexoffensesanddomesticviolence!thelaw ($$ continuestoprohibituseof otheroffensesevidenceasproofofcriminalprop_ensity_. )%% Consequently,aninstructionallowingconsiderationof otheroffensesforthat *&& purposewouldstillraisedueprocessconcerns,justifyingChapmanreview.+''(#(# Ї0   ` (b)Eveninsexoffenseordomesticviolencecaseswhereconsiderationof   otheroffensesasproofofpropensityispermissible(under_Evid_.Code1108,  1109,and_Falsetta_),theinstructionsguidingthejurorsuseofthatevidencedeserve  especiallyclosescrutiny.BoththeNinthCircuitandsomeCaliforniaappellatecourts  foundthatthepre1999patterninstructions,_CALJIC_Ԁ2.50.01and2.50.1,violateddue  processbecause,readincombination,theyeffectivelyauthorizedaroutetoconviction   onevidencefallingshortofthereasonabledoubtstandard._CALJIC_Ԁ2.50.1allowed   proofofotheroffensesunderapreponderancestandard,andthepre1999versionof   2.50.01,inturn,allowedjurorstoinferthedefendantsguiltofthecurrentlycharged   offensefromthepropensityshownbyhispriorconviction. Therefore,theinterplay   ofthetwoinstructionsallowedthejurytofindthatGibsoncommittedtheuncharged   sexualoffensesbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceandthustoinferthathehad   committedthechargedactsbaseduponfactsfoundnotbeyondareasonabledoubt,   butbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Gibsonv.Ortiz(9thCir.2004)387F.3d   812,822,emphasisinoriginal;seealsoPeoplev._Vichroy_(1999)76_Cal.App_.4th92;  Peoplev._Orellano_(2000)79_Cal.App_.4th179;Peoplev.Frazier(2001)89  _Cal.App_.4th30;butcontrast,e.g.,Peoplev.VanWinkle(1999)75_Cal.App_