What is the test for a reversal of a judgment where the jury was instructed to view the testimony of an accomplice with distrust?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Jacobs, 230 Cal.App.3d 1337, 281 Cal.Rptr. 733 (Cal. App. 1991):

[230 Cal.App.3d 1347] In People v. Rogers (1943) 22 Cal.2d 787, 141 P.2d 722, the court noted that an error in an instruction which ordinarily would not prejudice the rights of a defendant may justify a reversal of the judgment where the jury is misdirected or misled upon an issue vital to the defense and the evidence does not point unerringly to the guilt of the person accused. "If it is probable that in the absence of a misleading instruction the jury would not have returned the verdict complained of, then there has been a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the constitutional provision. [Citations]." (Id. at p. 807, 141 P.2d 722.)

In People v. Dail (1943) 22 Cal.2d 642, 140 P.2d 828, the primary prosecution witnesses were accomplices. The court instructed the jury that the credibility of accomplice witnesses was to be judged by the same standard as other witnesses. However, the court also gave an instruction stating the statutory provision that the testimony of an accomplice should be viewed with distrust. Since the chief prosecuting witnesses were accomplices, it was of the utmost importance the jury be correctly advised as to the standards by which such testimony was to be weighed. No attempt was made to relate to or explain the inconsistency. Articulating the standard of whether the error affected "the substantial rights of the party complaining against it," the court concluded that the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the California Constitution. (Id. at p. 659, 140 P.2d 828.)

Other Questions


When an accomplice is called as a witness by the prosecution, is the jury required to distrust the testimony of their accomplice's testimony? (California, United States of America)
How have instructions been interpreted in a sexual assault case where a jury was instructed to give considerable weight to the testimony of an accomplice? (California, United States of America)
Does a trial court have a sua sponte obligation to instruct the jury on the need for corroboration to support the testimony of an accomplice? (California, United States of America)
Does a final judgment have to be reversed if the successful plaintiff dies while the judgment is on appeal? (California, United States of America)
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)
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)
Is a failure to instruct on accomplice testimony harmless? (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 there any case law where a jury has been instructed on accomplice testimony? (California, United States of America)
Does a jury need to be instructed that an accomplice's testimony regarding the circumstances of a crime of previous crime must be viewed with caution? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.