What is the effect of a failure to instruct at the sanity phase of a criminal case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Coddington, 2 P.3d 1081, 23 Cal.4th 529, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 528 (Cal. 2000):
Appellant claims that the failure to instruct at the sanity phase pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.60 that no adverse inference should be drawn from the fact that the defendant does not testify, when that instruction had been given at the guilt phase, could lead the jury to infer that such an inference could be drawn at the sanity phase. We do not share that speculation. We assume that the jury continues to apply instructions given at the guilt phase that are not inconsistent with sanity phase instructions. (People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 561, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 751, 905 P.2d 420.) Moreover, he did not request that the instruction be repeated, an instruction that he concedes need not be given sua sponte, but is left to counsel's
[23 Cal.4th 610]
discretion. (See People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1208, 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301.)[23 Cal.4th 610]
"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.
