California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ramirez, 270 Cal.Rptr. 286, 50 Cal.3d 1158, 791 P.2d 965 (Cal. 1990):
12 It is true that the comments of both the trial court and the prosecutor during the discussion on instructions suggest that each of them felt that the evidence of alcohol consumption that had been presented at the guilt phase was sufficient to warrant instructions on the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. Although the trial court's view of the strength of the evidence of intoxication is entitled to some weight on appeal (see, e.g., People v. Stevenson (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 976, 985, 145 Cal.Rptr. 301), the record in this case reveals that with respect to a wide range of issues both the court and prosecutor took pains to "bend over backwards" to avoid creating a potential basis for reversal, and the court's and prosecutor's comments on this point may well simply reflect their recognition of the wisdom of being cautious not to improperly limit the scope of the jury's deliberations.
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.