California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. Oliveira, G042004, Super. Ct. No. 05HF2101 (Cal. App. 2010):
Thus, although the court read to the jury CALCRIM No. 1202, the pattern instruction does not adequately inform a jury of the law on kidnapping for ransom. A court has a sua sponte duty to charge the jury on the essential elements of the crime. (People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 504.) Here, the court should have instructed the jury on the People's burden to prove that Ana did not consent to the charged conduct.
Whether the court should have instructed the jury on the conditional element of lack of reasonable belief in consent, as well as on the defenses of consent and reasonable belief in consent (as requested by defendants), 15 depends on the sufficiency of the evidentiary support. A "criminal defendant is entitled to adequate instructions on the defense theory of the case" if supported by the law and evidence (Conde v. Henry (9th Cir. 1999) 198 F.3d 734, 739) and "'has a constitutional right to have the jury determine
Page 22
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.