How have the courts interpreted jury instructions in a murder case?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Crew, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 733, 31 Cal.4th 822, 74 P.3d 820 (Cal. 2003):

Defendant contends three other jury instructions improperly lessened the prosecution's burden of proof. The first of those stated that a witness willfully false in part of his or her testimony was to be distrusted in other parts of the testimony. (CALJIC No. 2.21.2.) We have in the past rejected such a challenge when the defendant is the witness. (People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 94-95, 279 Cal.Rptr. 276, 806 P.2d 1311.) The challenge has even less force when, as here, the witness is other than the defendant. Second, defendant challenges the instruction that the jury should not decide guilt or innocence based on the number of witnesses but on the convincing force of the evidence. (CALJIC No. 2.22.) This instruction addresses the jury's evaluation of evidence, not the burden of proof. Defendant's third challenge is to CALJIC No. 8.20. This instruction requires the jury to find the killing was preceded by a clear and deliberate intent to kill that must have been formed upon preexisting reflection and not precluded by conditions that negate deliberation. There is no reasonable likelihood that any jury would misconstrue this instruction as lessening the prosecution's burden of proof in any respect.

The trial court instructed the jury that the flight of a person immediately after the commission of a crime is not sufficient to establish guilt but may be taken into consideration. (CALJIC No. 2.52.) It also instructed the jury not to consider an effort to procure false evidence for the defendant's benefit unless the jury finds that the defendant authorized the effort, and that even then the conduct by itself is not sufficient to prove guilt. (CALJIC No. 2.05.) Defendant contends these instructions are impermissible "pinpoint" instructions to consider specific pieces of evidence against him. We have in the past rejected such a challenge (People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1223-1224, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 920 P.2d 1254), and we do so again here.

Other Questions


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)
How have the courts interpreted jury instructions in a murder case? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the felony-murder instruction in cases involving assault with a deadly weapon? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the felony-murder special circumstance in cases where robbery was incidental to the murder? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted jury instructions in cases involving sexual assault cases? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted sentencing instructions in a murder case? (California, United States of America)
How has the court interpreted sentencing instructions in a murder case? (California, United States of America)
In a capital murder case, in what circumstances will the California Supreme Court order that a juror should not submit a questionnaire for the purpose of selecting a jury in capital murder cases? (California, United States of America)
What are the findings of the California Superior Court of Appeal on the grounds that the instructions given by defendant in his conspiracy to commit felony murder were not tantamount to felony murder instructions? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.