How have the courts interpreted the trespass instruction in a personal injury case?

Defendant claims the instruction "invited the jury to infer that [he] was a trespasser." He does not explain why this is so. The trial court instructed the jury (CALCRIM No. 200) that not all instructions would necessarily apply, that it was up to the jury to find the facts, and not to assume that because an instruction was given the court was "suggesting anything about the facts." We presume the jury followed this instruction. (People v. Vang, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1129.) Further, as part of the pattern self-defense instructions, the trial court instructed that the People had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense. The verdict shows how the jury resolved that question.

We find no error regarding the trespass instruction.