California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Katz, A153625 (Cal. App. 2020):
Defendant claims the jury was confused about the instructions, but " ' " ' "we must assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given." ' " ' " (People v. Landry (2016) 2 Cal.5th 52, 95.) During the remainder of the deliberations, the jury sent an additional question in a note to the court but did not ask any further questions about the application of CALCRIM No. 3425. We see no basis to conclude the jury misinterpreted the instructions or applied them in a way that violated defendant's rights.2 (See Mathson, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 1312.)
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.