Does a jury have a duty to apprise the jury of third party culpability?

"has a duty to instruct the jury 'sua sponte on general principles which are closely and openly connected with the facts before the court[,]' " there is "no special instruction on third party culpability . . . necessary to apprise the jury of the pertinent legal principles" where the jury was properly instructed on the defendant's presumed innocence and the requirement that the jury find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reasoned that "[h]ad the jury entertained a reasonable doubt that defendant sodomized and killed the victim and instead believed [his cousin] committed those crimes, presumably it would have acquitted defendant." (Ibid.; see also People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 823-824 [concluding trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, regarding third party culpability].)

Similar to the jury in People v. Abilez, here the jury was properly instructed on the presumption of innocence, the People's burden of proof, and the concept of reasonable doubt. If the jury believed Pathammavong or another individual committed the shooting at the pool house, presumably it would have acquitted Le. We thus conclude the jury instructions did not undermine the presumption of innocence or ease the prosecution's burden of proof.

Page 47