California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Thongvilay, 62 Cal.App.4th 71, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 738 (Cal. App. 1998):
Defendants argue that these instructions would have informed the jury that they were allowed to consider defendants' subjective beliefs that they had reached a place of temporary safety and whether there was an opportunity to dispose of the stereo taken from the car. Respondent argues the instructions were properly rejected because the points defendants sought to convey were duplicative of, or adequately covered by, the given instructions. We agree with respondent. Where the proposed instructions are repetitious of others, or merely elaborate on the general instructions, the trial court may refuse to give them. (People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 560, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 751, 905 P.2d 420.) Furthermore, we note that neither defendant testified as to his subjective belief. This fact alone supports the trial court's decision to reject the requested instructions. Nonetheless, out of caution, we will complete our analysis of the trial court's decision.
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.