Does a court need to give Sua sponte a cautionary instruction that testimony pertaining to the flight be viewed with caution?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Johnson, 271 Cal.App.2d 616, 76 Cal.Rptr. 768 (Cal. App. 1969):

If the flight be construed to be an admission by conduct as the defendant contends, it was not necessary for the court to give Sua sponte a cautionary instruction that testimony pertaining thereto should be viewed with caution. The cautionary instruction as to admissions pertained to oral [271 Cal.App.2d 624] admissions. The reason for the rule was that oral statements not recorded or reduced to writing can be easily twisted or misunderstood. (People v. Gardner (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 829, 832, 16 Cal.Rptr. 256.) Such is not true as to conduct. 'When the reason of a rule ceases, so should the rule itself.' (Civ. Code, 3510.)

Other Questions


When a defendant's out-of-court statement is admitted to a jury, does the court have to instruct the jury that this evidence must be viewed with caution? (California, United States of America)
Does the court have to instruct the jury that the testimony of an in-custody informant should be viewed with caution? (California, United States of America)
Does a trial court have a sua sponte obligation to instruct the jury on the need for corroboration to support the testimony of an accomplice? (California, United States of America)
Does the Court have to grant immunity to a witness who testified in a witness testimony that the testimony was inconsistent with the instructions? (California, United States of America)
Does a jury need to be instructed that an accomplice's testimony regarding the circumstances of a crime of previous crime must be viewed with caution? (California, United States of America)
Can an appellant seek review of an instruction in the Superior Court of Appeal where the original instruction was found to have made errors that could have been cured in the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant have grounds to argue that a trial court prejudicially errs in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte at the penalty phase to disregard the no-sympathy instruction at the guilt phase? (California, United States of America)
Does a jury need to be instructed that an accomplice's testimony regarding the circumstances of a crime of previous crime must be viewed with caution? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review applied by appellate courts to a decision by a trial court to instruct or not to instruct a jury? (California, United States of America)
Does the court erred by failing to instruct jurors sua sponte that they should consider an informer's testimony to be inherently unreliable? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.