Does a trial court have a duty to give an instruction that the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to establish any element of the crime including the element of intent?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Rodriguez, F071705 (Cal. App. 2017):

A trial court must give this instruction on its own motion if the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to establish any element of the crime, including the element of intent. (People v. Yrigoyen (1955) 45 Cal.2d 46, 49-50.) There is no sua sponte duty to give the instruction if the circumstantial evidence is merely incidental to and corroborative of the direct evidence. (People v. Marlbrough (1961) 55 Cal.2d 249, 250-251.) Rodriguez did not request the instruction.

Other Questions


Is there any instructional error in general criminal intent instruction used by the trial court to include counts 4 and 7 in the General Criminal intent instruction? (California, United States of America)
Does the prosecution have to forgo the use of relevant, persuasive evidence to prove an element of a crime because the element might also be established through other evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for establishing substantial evidence in a motion to overturn a decision of the trial court based upon the absence of substantial evidence to support it? (California, United States of America)
Does a substantial amount of evidence need to be substantial to determine whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct on a lesser included offense? (California, United States of America)
Does the prosecution have to avoid using relevant, persuasive evidence to prove an element of a crime because that element might also be established through other evidence? (California, United States of America)
Does the trial court instruct the jury on the limited admissibility of statements relied on by Edinger, the expert who gave evidence at trial on the basis of an expert opinion? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Is there substantial evidence to support the instruction that a judge must only give the instruction which is supported by substantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
When will a jury consider the quality of evidence in determining whether the prosecution substantially relied on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.