Is there any ambiguity or technical inconsistency in instructions that only one witness's testimony is sufficient for proof of any fact?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Lamas, F073362 (Cal. App. 2018):
153.) At most, the instructions raised a potential ambiguity or technical inconsistency. (See People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 186 [instructions that testimony of one witness was sufficient for proof of any fact and that accomplice testimony required corroboration raised "technical inconsistency"].)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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
Does the Court have to grant immunity to a witness who testified in a witness testimony that the testimony was inconsistent with the instructions? (California, United States of America)
What is the state prosecutor's argument that only the testimony of a single witness is sufficient for the proof of any fact? (California, United States of America)
Does the Attorney General have any authority or authority to instruct a jury to disregard an instruction in an assault case where the instruction had no antecedent in the facts? (California, United States of America)
Is a statement made by a witness that is inconsistent with any part of the witness's testimony inconsistent with the testimony? (California, United States of America)
When a jury is asked to interpret the jury instructions in a civil trial, what are the consequences if the instructions are claimed to be conflicting or ambiguous? (California, United States of America)
Does Cal.CALCRIM No. 301 instruct the jury the testimony of a single witness can prove any fact? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a jury instruction challenged on appeal is ambiguous or ambiguous? (California, United States of America)
Is the death penalty statute unconstitutional for failing to provide the jury with instructions of the burden of proof and standard of proof? (California, United States of America)
Is the death penalty statute unconstitutional for failing to provide the jury with instructions of the burden of proof and standard of proof? (California, United States of America)
Does the instruction that the jury was to follow the instructions if an attorney's comments appeared to be in conflict with the instructions apply? (California, United States of America)
