Does the trial court have a sua sponte duty to modify CALCRIM No. 3472 to instruct the jury that if someone removed evidence from the scene that might have established the right to self-defense?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Welch, B281532 (Cal. App. 2018):

Welch also contends that the trial court should have modified CALCRIM No. 3472 to instruct the jury that "if someone removed evidence from the scene that might have established the right to self-defense, you may take this into account in deciding whether the defendant acted in self-defense." Welch provides no authority supporting the proposition that the court had a sua sponte duty to modify the instruction in this manner. To the extent Welch "believed the instructions were incomplete or needed elaboration, it was his obligation to request additional or clarifying instructions." (People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 514.) "His failure to do so waives the claim in this court." (Ibid.)

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

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.

Other Questions

In what circumstances of the crime scene evidence will be admitted during the penalty phase of a penalty trial, does the trial court error not to exclude the evidence? (California, United States of America)

If defendant has no right to present the evidence at trial, has he not established a violation of his right to a fair trial? (California, United States of America)

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)

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 a defendant's extrajudicial statements form part of the prosecution's evidence, does the trial court have to instruct sua sponte that a finding of guilt cannot be predicated on the statements alone? (California, United States of America)

(1) Does the trial court have a sua sponte duty to give instructions and verdict forms on crime B if warranted by the evidence? (California, United States of America)

What is the standard of review applied by appellate courts to a decision by a trial court to instruct or not to instruct a jury? (California, United States of America)

Does a defendant have grounds to argue that a trial court prejudicially errs in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte at the penalty phase to disregard the no-sympathy instruction at the guilt phase? (California, United States of America)

Does a competent, unconflicted counsel who submitted on the evidence at the preliminary hearing, should have argued to the trial court that this evidence did not establish the lawful duty element beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)

When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)

Does the trial court have a sua sponte duty to modify CALCRIM No. 3472 to instruct the jury that if someone removed evidence from the scene that might have established the right to self-defense?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources