California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Sandoval, 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 424, 363 P.3d 41, 62 Cal.4th 394 (Cal. 2015):
abstract or in comparison to the "quality of the direct evidence" that it "bolsters, corroborates, or supports." (McKinnon, supra, at p. 676 & fn. 40, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 590, 259 P.3d 1186.) It is also true even if the defendant's mental state is at issue; a circumstantial evidence instruction is not required if that mental state is "proved by inference drawn from the direct evidence of [the] defendant's conduct," including the defendant's own extrajudicial statements and the testimony of eyewitnesses. (People v. Wiley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 162, 175, 133 Cal.Rptr. 135, 554 P.2d 881.)
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.