Does a defense's instruction on third party culpability confuse the jury?

We agree with the trial court that the defense's proffered pinpoint instruction on third party culpability was confusing. The following sentence contains several references to an undefined burden of proof and is filled with legal jargon that is virtually incomprehensible to laypersons: "The defendant is not required to establish the guilt of a third person with that degree of certainty requisite to sustain a conviction of the latter." It is likely that this sentence would have confused the jury. Therefore, the trial court did not err by refusing to give this instruction. (Hovarter, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1022; People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 886-887.)

Page 33

3. The absence of instruction on third party culpability was not prejudicial.