California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Osborne, 143 Cal.Rptr. 582, 77 Cal.App.3d 472 (Cal. App. 1978):
Was there then substantial evidence on the issue of innocent intent sufficient to alert the trial judge that it is an issue in the case? We hold that there was. "Needless to say, the trial court is not required to anticipate every possible theory that may fit the facts or fill in every time a litigant or his counsel fails to discover some obscure but possible theory of the facts. As the court put it in People v. Cram (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 37, 41, 90 Cal.Rptr. 393, 396, 'There must be substantial evidence on the issue sufficient to alert the trial judge that it is an issue in the case. There is no duty on the trial court to dissect the evidence in an effort to develop some arcane, remote or nebulous theory of the evidence on which to instruct. The duty of the trial court involves percipience not omniscience.' " (People v. Pijal, supra, 33 Cal.App.3d at p. 696, 109 Cal.Rptr. at p. 238, emphasis in original.) In the present case, defendant twice testified that he intended to arrest the man who offered to sell him the property because he believed the man had stolen it. Although there was evidence of circumstances which tended to disprove such an intent, defendant's testimony constituted substantial evidence of his intent which the jury was free to accept, rejecting conflicting inferences.
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.