California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Harris, 255 Cal.Rptr. 352, 47 Cal.3d 1047, 767 P.2d 619 (Cal. 1989):
"The general rule is that the trial court must instruct the jury on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence, even though not requested to do so, but need not instruct on its own motion on specific points developed at the trial." (People v. Hood (1969) 1 Cal.3d 444, 449, 82 Cal.Rptr. 618, 462 P.2d 370.) The jurors were instructed that they were the sole judge of the believability of the witnesses; that they could consider prior consistent or inconsistent statements by a witness in "testing the credibility of the witness," that in determining the believability of a witness they could consider "anything that has a tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of the testimony," and that they were not limited in this by the factors suggested by the court. The jurors were also [47 Cal.3d 1097] instructed that the testimony of an informer must be examined with greater care than that of an ordinary witness, and that the testimony of a witness who has made false or deliberately misleading statements concerning the charges being tried should be viewed with distrust. The instructions were adequate to advise the jury on the general principles of law relevant to the determination of witness credibility. 27
3. Eyewitness testimony.
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.