What is the standard of review for a jury to consider the credibility of eyewitness evidence in a criminal case?

"Since principles of due process protect the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt [citation], an instruction to the jury which has the effect of reversing or lightening the burden of proof constitutes an infringement on the defendant's constitutional right to due process. [Citations.]" (People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 679-680.)

We apply the de novo standard of review. (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088.) Specifically, "'[i]n considering a claim of instructional error we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and then determine what meaning the instruction given conveys. The test is whether there is a reasonable

Page 11

likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defendant's rights.' [Citation.] We determine the correctness of the jury instructions from the entire charge of the court, not from considering only parts of an instruction or one particular instruction. [Citation.]" (People v. Smith (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 7, 13.)

CALCRIM No. 315 informs the jury that it should consider whether the eyewitness was confident in his identification; it does not tell the jury that eyewitness testimony is reliable or otherwise trustworthy; it does not tell the jury what weight to assign to the eyewitness's confidence; and the instruction reminds the jury that the prosecution has the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In sum, it appears that the instruction presents the factor of witness certainty in a neutral manner, and therefore, it is unlikely that the jury believed that the certainty of the victim's identification equated with accuracy or reliability. (See People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1141 [factors should be listed in a neutral manner].) In sum, the trial court did not err.