Does the court err in giving instructions to codefendants where one codefendant testified in his own behalf, denied guilt, and incriminated himself?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Delvillar, F069224 (Cal. App. 2017):

In People v. Alvarez, supra, 14 Cal.4th 155, the court held the trial court did not err in giving accomplice instructions, where two codefendants each testified in his or her own behalf, denied guilt, and incriminated the other to some extent. The court explained that the testimony of an accomplice who testified against a defendant deserves "'close scrutiny'" because "he has the motive, opportunity, and means to attempt to help himself at the other's expense," and that this rationale "remains true when the accomplice who testified against a defendant is himself a defendant." (Id. at p. 218.)

Other Questions


Does the court err in giving instructions to codefendants where one codefendant testified in his own behalf, denied guilt, and incriminated himself? (California, United States of America)
When there is evidence of an accomplice giving instructions to a jury in a criminal case, what is the duty of the trial court to give the jury instructions? (California, United States of America)
Is there any instructional error in general criminal intent instruction used by the trial court to include counts 4 and 7 in the General Criminal intent instruction? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant's claim that the trial court erred when it denied his request to instruct the jury it could reject the death penalty if it had a lingering doubt about his guilt? (California, United States of America)
Can a party argue on appeal that the court failed to give a specific instruction when that party did not request such instruction? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the instructions in the context of manslaughter instructions in cases where the instruction was limited or limited? (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 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)
In what circumstances will a court refuse to give a cautionary instruction to a jury in a case where a witness testified that two of the robbers urged the manager to shoot the manager? (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)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.