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.)
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.