Is there any error for a trial court to refuse to give a pinpoint instruction to the jury that evidence of third party culpability raises a reasonable doubt concerning defendant?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Denson, C068292 (Cal. App. 2015):

It is not error for a trial court to refuse a pinpoint instruction on a point that is adequately covered by other instructions. (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 362-363.) The trial court here instructed the jury that it must consider all of the evidence, and the jury must find the defendant not guilty unless the People have proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court gave the jury a list of factors to consider in evaluating eyewitness testimony identifying defendant as the perpetrator. The trial court also instructed the jury on the elements of the charged offenses. The trial court told the jury it must find defendant not guilty if the People have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the charged crimes. Given these instructions, the jury could not have understood that it could convict defendant if it believed someone else was responsible for the shooting. No instructional error occurred because the instructions given adequately conveyed that evidence of third party culpability raises a reasonable doubt concerning defendant's guilt. (Hartsch, supra, 49 Cal.4th at 504.)

Other Questions


Does the Court have prejudicial error to refuse instructions that a defendant is entitled to an acquittal if the evidence of self-defense raises a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the absence of lingering doubt from a recitation of evidence the defense offered in an attempt to raise reasonable doubt raise a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
If defendant fails to establish all the errors of the trial court as a cumulative result of the cumulative error, can he continue to argue that the cumulative effect of the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and mandates reversal? (California, United States of America)
Does third party evidence raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of a defendant in a sexual assault case? (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)
Does a trial court error of inadequately warning a defendant of the pitfalls and hazards involved in self-representation constitute harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
How have the Attorney General argued that the Court of Appeal invited error in giving instructions on application of the reasonable doubt principle to a lesser included homicide defendant? (California, United States of America)
What is "substantial evidence" that raises a reasonable doubt about a defendant's competence to stand trial? (California, United States of America)
How have courts treated a defendant's claim that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on the elements of rape and sodomy generally? (California, United States of America)
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)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.