How to evaluate the credibility of an expert witness?

Nevertheless, we conclude the error was harmless. We do not consider jury instructions in isolation. Rather, we consider the entire charge to the jury to determine whether instructions were correct and adequate. (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 677.) From this perspective, we hold the trial court adequately instructed the jury based on all of the instructions it gave. The court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 226, which instructed the jury on how to evaluate witness testimony. This instruction broadly and similarly instructed the jury as CALCRIM No. 332 would have done. Like CALCRIM No. 332, which incorporates CALCRIM No. 226 and instructs the jury to follow instructions about the believability of witnesses generally in evaluating the believability of an expert witness, CALCRIM No. 226 instructed the jury to judge the credibility or believability of the witness. Like CALCRIM No. 332, which instructs the

Page 11