By CALCRIM Number

Name: People v. Sudar
Case #: A115464
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Citation: 158 Cal.App.4th 655
Opinion Date: 01/02/2008

In an NGI proceeding, the failure to instruct the jury that the prosecution must prove "serious difficulty controlling dangerous behavior" was harmless error. Appellant contended on appeal from his extended NGI commitment that reversal was required due to the trial court's failure to give a requested jury instruction. Appellant had argued that the standard jury instruction, CALCRIM 3453, should be modified to include the requirement set forth in In re Howard N. that the prosecution prove the person to be committed could not control his dangerous behavior. The trial court denied the request, and the jury was…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Flores
Case #: G037695
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Citation: 157 Cal.App.4th 216
Opinion Date: 11/27/2007

CALCRIM No. 875 is neither a pinpoint instruction, nor is it argumentative. CALCRIM 362 regarding false or misleading statements showing a consciousness of guilt was not improperly given where appellant subsequently corrected his earlier statements and admitted that he fired the weapon. Because the evidence on the assault charge showed a continuous course of conduct, there was no need for a unanimity instruction. It was not error to impose consecutive terms on the assault and possession of methamphetamine counts because there is no requirement that the court find aggravating factors in order to impose consecutive…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ibarra
Case #: F050331
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Citation: 156 Cal.App.4th 1174
Opinion Date: 11/13/2007

Challenges to CALCRIM instructions rejected. Appellant challenged several CALCRIM instructions given at his trial for stalking and assault, and argued that the cumulative impact of the errors warrants reversal even if none of the individual errors did. The appellate court found that CALCRIM No. 100 was not a prejudicial burden shifting instruction. CALCRIM No 101 did not erroneously instruct the jury regarding outside influences on the jury and jury opinions toward the verdict. CALCRIM Nos. 102 and 104 did not incorrectly instruct on a juror's notes and on the court reporter's notes. CALCRIM No. 104…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Campos
Case #: B191256
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Citation: 156 Cal.App.4th 1228
Opinion Date: 11/14/2007

Various jury instructions were found valid. (1) CALCRIM 220 directing the jurors to consider all the evidence received at trial does not preclude the jury from finding reasonable doubt based on the lack of evidence presented at the trial, as well as from the evidence presented. (2) CALCRIM 220 defining proof beyond a reasonable doubt as proof that leaves one with an "abiding conviction" does not require a clarifying instruction for "abiding conviction." (3) CALCRIM 226 directing jurors to use their common sense and experience in judging credibility of witnesses does not impermissibly invite jurors to consider matters outside…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Dunkerson
Case #: C052287
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Citation: 155 Cal.App.4th 1413
Opinion Date: 10/10/2007

CALCRIM No. 3160 (the group beating jury instruction), constitutionally satisfies the requirement of personal infliction of injury. Appellant and three other men assaulted the victim, hitting and kicking him. The victim required stitches to three areas of his head and suffered pain and impaired movement for several months after. The jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 3160. Appellant claimed this was error as it allowed the jury to find that the defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury even though he may have only aided others and did not inflict the critical injury himself. Disagreeing, the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Thomas
Case #: C052849
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Citation: 156 Cal.App.4th 304
Opinion Date: 10/22/2007

CALCRIM 3450 informs the jury that the burden is on the defendant to prove he was insane at the time of the crime but does not direct a finding of sanity if the jury finds that defendant was legally sane at times and at other times legally insane. Appellant argued that the following portion of the instruction effectively directed a finding of sanity because almost all mentally ill persons have moments of lucidity: "If you conclude that at times the defendant was legally sane and other times the defendant was insane, you must assume that he was legally sane…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Montero
Case #: C052423
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Citation: 155 Cal.App.4th 1170
Opinion Date: 10/02/2007

The jury was adequately instructed with CALCRIM No. 2302. In his appeal from his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale, appellant challenged CALCRIM No. 2302, which he contended erroneously omitted the element of "dominion and control" and "knowing exercise of control" from its definition of possession of methamphetamine for sale. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that the instruction correctly expresses the knowledge requirement. It correctly stated the element of possession and knowledge in a manner reasonable jurors were able to understand.
The trial court did not err when it instructed the jury to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Guerrero
Case #: C052364
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Citation: 155 Cal.App.4th 1264
Opinion Date: 10/03/2007

CALCRIM No. 220 does not violate due process. In appellant's trial for lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14, the trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM 220. On appeal, appellant contended this instruction prevented the jury from considering a lack of evidence in deciding whether reasonable doubt existed because of the phrase "the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial." The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that CALCRIM No. 220 does not suggest an impermissible definition of reasonable doubt to the jury. It neither lowers the prosecution's standard of proof nor raises the amount…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. O’Dell
Case #: B192805
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Citation: 153 Cal.App.4th 1569
Opinion Date: 08/09/2007

CALCRIM No. 376, instructing that possession of recently stolen property as evidence of a crime, does not shift the burden of proof to defendant, permit the jury to disregard defense evidence of innocent possession, or permit the jury to draw an impermissible inference of guilt without sufficient basis in fact.

Observing that CALCRIM no. 376 uses language very similar to CALJIC 2.15, the appellate court noted that 2.15 has withstood constitutional challenges. (See People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 617.) Under either instruction the jury is prohibited from drawing an inference of guilt based on recent possession of stolen property…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cromp
Case #: C052319
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Citation: 153 Cal.App.4th 476
Opinion Date: 07/18/2007

CALCRIM No. 1191, permitting the jury to conclude from the prior rape evidence that appellant was predisposed to commit sexual offenses, does not violate appellant's due process rights. Appellant was convicted of six counts of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) against two separate victims. The jury also found true the allegation that the offenses were committed against more than one victim and the court found a prior rape conviction allegation true. At trial evidence of a rape defendant committed in 1993 was permitted and the jury was instructed as to this evidence per CALCRIM 1191. There is…

View Full Summary