California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Daniels, H046156 (Cal. App. 2021):
The constitutional right to due process has long been understood to require that "criminal defendants be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." (California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479, 485.) And it is settled that the right to present a defense includes the right to present evidence relevant to a defense theory. (Washington v. Texas (1967) 388 U.S. 14, 19.) That right would be meaningless without a corresponding right to have the jury instructed on the theory to which the evidence relates. If evidence is presented to establish a defense to conviction but the jury is not told the defense exists, then the defendant has not had the opportunity to present a complete defense. The conclusion that due process requires a jury instruction on a legally valid affirmative defense supported by substantial evidence necessarily follows.
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.