California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Roehler, 167 Cal.App.3d 353, 213 Cal.Rptr. 353 (Cal. App. 1985):
Defendant also asserts that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. The proper instruction on the subject (CALJIC No. 2.00) was given the jury. However, the trial judge chose to attempt to illustrate the distinction between the two kinds of evidence by placing a pen in a wastebasket and drawing conclusions about that fact. Defendant argues that, by the example given, the jury may have been persuaded that they could convict without application of the reasonable doubt standard. We find the assertion one without merit. While the effort to demonstrate the distinction was not particularly illuminating, it must be viewed with some perspective. Perfection is often not possible, nor is it required. Moreover, even if giving the example was instructional error, it is not reasonably probable that defendant would, without it, have obtained a more favorable result. (People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 P.2d 243; see fn. 5, supra ).
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.