In June we reported on this case, in which the defendant challenged the wording of CACI 201, the pattern jury instruction that defines “clear and convincing evidence.” After our initial post, the Court of Appeal granted rehearing to reexamine a different aspect of the case.
The court has now reissued its published opinion. It contains the same analysis of CACI 201, i.e., the opinion once again holds that CACI 201 is correct as written and should not be augmented to reflect the definition of clear and convincing evidence set forth by the California Supreme Court in In re Angelia P.
