California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Johnson, A139190 (Cal. App. 2015):
The jury was instructed to consider each charge separately (CALCRIM No. 3515). As noted ante, the instruction given on consideration of the prior sex offense evidence specifically directed its consideration to the current forcible rape and forcible oral copulation charges, and was given immediately following the instructions on the elements of rape and forcible oral copulation. The jury was also instructed to follow the court's instructions on the law if they conflicted with any statements made by counsel (CALCRIM No. 200). "[T]he 'court's instructions, not the prosecution's argument, are determinative, for "[w]e presume that jurors treat the court's instructions as a statement of the law by a judge, and the prosecutor's comments as words spoken by an advocate in an attempt to persuade." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 173.)
Page 23
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.