If there was substantial evidence of imperfect self-defense not inconsistent with the defense theory of the case, does the trial court have a sua sponte duty to instruct a defendant not to testify?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. De Leon, 10 Cal.App.4th 815, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 825 (Cal. App. 1992):

If there was substantial evidence of imperfect self-defense not inconsistent with the defense theory of the case, the trial court had a sua sponte duty to give such an instruction. (People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 326, 185 Cal.Rptr. 436, 650 P.2d 311.) Here, there is no issue concerning "not inconsistent with the defense theory of the case."
Also not in issue is the legal significance of the defendant not testifying. Substantial evidence of a defendant's state of mind, including an "honest but unreasonable belief in the necessity to defend against imminent peril to life" (CALJIC No. 5.17), may be present without defendant testimony. (People v. Castillo (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 119, 126, 238 Cal.Rptr. 207; People v. Anderson (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 55, 62, 192 Cal.Rptr. 409.)

"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

Is a defendant's right to testify in his own defense justified when the trial court rejects a request by the defense to reopen his case? (California, United States of America)

Does a defendant have a duty to instruct sua sponte on a defense that it is not inconsistent with their own theory of self-defense? (California, United States of America)

When a defendant is charged with murder, does the trial court have a sua sponte duty to instruct on imperfect self defense? (California, United States of America)

What is a trial court's duty to instruct sua sponte on certain self-defense defenses? (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 Defendant have a claim that the trial court abused its discretion to treat Defendant as a "defendant" in a medical malpractice case? (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)

What is the sua sponte duty of a trial court to instruct a defendant on a defense of kidnapping during the commission of a murder? (California, United States of America)

When will a trial court instruct the jury on the defense of unconsciousness and self-defense in a case of involuntary manslaughter? (California, United States of America)

When will a court grant a defendant an instruction that cautions the jury that it may not draw an adverse inference from the fact that a defendant has not testified at trial? (California, United States of America)

If there was substantial evidence of imperfect self-defense not inconsistent with the defense theory of the case, does the trial court have a sua sponte duty to instruct a defendant not to testify?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources