California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ballard, C086079 (Cal. App. 2021):
still come into evidence, and the jury was fully instructed on the principles of law that governed its consideration of witness testimony. The court instructed the jurors that when considering witness statements, they were to "consider, among other things, how well a witness could 'see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified,' how well the witness was 'able to remember and describe what happened,' and whether the witness's testimony was influenced by 'bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided.' (CALCRIM No. 226.) These general instructions, like the cautionary instruction, 'aid the jury in determining whether [the defendant's extrajudicial statement] was in fact made.' (People v. Bemis [(1949)] 33 Cal.2d [395,] 400.) Consequently, the erroneous omission of the cautionary instruction has frequently been held to be harmless error in light of such general instructions on witness credibility." (People v. Diaz, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1191.)
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.