What is the current state of the law on the doctrine of "willfully evading" in a motor vehicle case?

We disagree that the case was submitted to the jury on an incorrect legal theory. (See People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1127-1128.) Here the jury was instructed that in order to find appellant guilty of evading, it was required to find he "willfully fled from, or tried to elude, the officer, intending to evade the officer[.]" Further, the jury was instructed that "[S]omeone commits an act willfully when he does it willingly or on purpose." The jury was properly instructed that in order to find appellant guilty on count 1, it was required to find that he "[willingly or on purpose] fled from, or tried to elude, the officer, intending to evade [him.]"

Further, to the extent appellant now claims the instructions needed amplification or clarification, he has waived such a claim by failing to make such a request at trial. "`"Generally, a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language."' [Citations.]" (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 149.)

While the prosecutor may have misstated some law, that did not constitute presentation of the case on a legally incorrect theory. At most, such an error could amount to prosecutorial misconduct. Having failed at trial to timely object to the comments, however, appellant is foreclosed from raising the issue on appeal. (See People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34, 44.)

Moreover, even if the issue had not been waived, the comments did not rise to the level of misconduct. (People v. Morales, supra, at p. 44.) Insofar as the prosecutor suggested to the jury that in determining whether appellant saw the officer's lamp, the standard to be applied was "saw or reasonably should have seen" the lamp, the prosecutor was correct. Further, her statement that the burden of proving the elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt was not to eliminate all possible doubt was correct.