How have instructions been interpreted in a criminal case?

Defendant claims reversible error in the trial court's failure to give instructions that would have defined a defendant's admissions (CALJIC No. 2.71) and told the jury to view with caution the evidence of defendant's preoffense statements of intent, plan, or motive (CALJIC No. 2.71.7). Such instructions, when applicable, must be given sua sponte. (People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 455, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1.)

The Attorney General argues that (1) the instructions were waived, and (2) their absence was not prejudicial. We need

Page 686