California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Grimes, 1 Cal.5th 698, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 378 P.3d 320 (Cal. 2016):
The trial court delivered the standard instruction regarding circumstantial evidence (CALJIC No. 8.83 ), which told the jury that (1) each fact that is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the truth of a special circumstance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) if there are two reasonable interpretations of the circumstantial evidence, the jury must accept the one that favors defendant. Defendant argues that instructing the jury regarding these principles only in connection with circumstantial evidence could cause the jury to believe that the principles did not apply when direct evidence is used. (See People v. Vann (1974) 12 Cal.3d 220, 226227, 115 Cal.Rptr. 352, 524 P.2d 824 [instruction on circumstantial evidence, in the absence of a general instruction requiring proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, might have been interpreted by jurors as requiring a lesser degree of proof if the evidence is direct].) He contends the instruction undermined the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as applied to direct evidence, and that this instructional error requires reversal of the
[1 Cal.5th 724]
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.