Skip to content
Name: People v. O’Dell
Case #: B192805
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
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
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
Name: People v. Flores
Case #: F050958
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/30/2007

CALCRIM no. 220 directing the jury to consider all the evidence received at trial, but not specifically referring the lack of evidence, does not violate due process.

The only reasonable understanding of this language is that a lack of evidence can lead to reasonable doubt. Further, nothing in the instructions given implies that appellant must adduce evidence promoting reasonable doubt or otherwise provide the jury of his…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Anderson
Case #: C051985
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/26/2007

The giving of the following jury instructions did not constitute error: CALCRIM 200, 220, 223, 224, 226, 251, 300, 302, 316, 355, 370, 376, 1600, and…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Holmes
Case #: C052069
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/19/2007

The prosecutor's burden of proof was not lessened by CALCRIM No. 3517. Appellant challenged the language of CALCRIM No. 3517 which told the jury that the prosecutor had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed kidnaping by violence or menace rather than a lesser included offense of false imprisonment. He argued that the phrasing of the prosecutor's burden as a comparative lessened the burden of proof. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. CALCRIM No. 3517 was not the primary instruction on burden of proof, and other instructions given properly…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Westbrook
Case #: D048175
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/14/2007

The reasonable doubt jury instruction CALCRIM 220 does not violate due process. In this case, the undercover police detective testified that he bought .27 grams of cocaine with a $20 bill from an individual he identified as Westbrook. Soon thereafter, Westbrook was arrested. When searched, no cocaine or money was found on his person or the immediate area. The defense argued that "they arrested the wrong guy." The appellate court rejected appellant's argument that CALCRIM 220 prohibited the jurors from considering the lack of evidence, instead finding that the instruction told the jury that it could…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Reyes
Case #: C052592
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/14/2007

CALCRIM instructions 103 [reasonable doubt], 302 [evaluating conflicting evidence] and 359 [corpus delecti] do not misstate the law. The appellate court rejected appellant's contention that because 103 warns the jury of three impermissible bases of prejudice, but mentions only one that cannot be considered as evidence, the average juror would then consider the fact that defendant was arrested and brought to trial as evidence of the crime. It rejected appellant's contention that 302 was not a correct statement of law in that it allowed the number of witnesses to be considered a factor in deciding which of two…

View Full Summary