California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Zatko, 145 Cal.Rptr. 643, 80 Cal.App.3d 534 (Cal. App. 1978):
In light of the fact that defendant had made a threat of violence, it does not appear that the trial court abused its discretion. It should further be noted that the trial court attempted to use physical restraints that were as unobtrusive as possible. In fact, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury was even aware of the physical restraints. "It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, and that 'Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.' " (People v. Merriam (1967) 66 Cal.2d 390, 396-397, 58 Cal.Rptr. 1, 5, 426 P.2d 161, 165, [80 Cal.App.3d 552] overruled on other grounds in People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 882, 123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247.)
5. Should the trial court have instructed the jury to disregard the restraints?
Finally, defendant claims that the trial court should have, sua sponte, instructed
Page 654
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.