What is the test for accepting the reasonable and the unreasonable conclusions when considering circumstantial evidence in a murder trial?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Peralta, D074902 (Cal. App. 2019):
As we read it, the prosecutor told jurors to draw reasonable inferences from the circumstantial evidence. That was proper. (People v. Romero (2008) 44 Cal.4th 386, 416 [no error in telling jurors to " 'accept the reasonable and reject the unreasonable' "]; CALCRIM No. 224 ["when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable"].) Contrary to Peralta's
Page 18
"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.
Other Questions
Does a jury have to consider felony murder or premeditated murder before it considers the lesser included offense of second degree murder? (California, United States of America)
When will a jury consider the quality of evidence in determining whether the prosecution substantially relied on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review for a murder trial where the prosecution relied mainly on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances of the crime scene evidence will be admitted during the penalty phase of a penalty trial, does the trial court error not to exclude the evidence? (California, United States of America)
What evidence has been presented to a jury in a murder trial of a convicted murderer with a history of violence? (California, United States of America)
When a prosecutor challenged nine prospective jurors for cause at a jury trial for the murder of a man who was found guilty of murder by reason of insanity, can they be excused for cause? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable plaintiff and a reasonable plaintiff under a "reasonable implied assumption of risk" approach? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant have a duty to accept the only interpretation of the circumstantial evidence that "appears to be reasonable"? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)
What are the principles of a motion for a new trial where a witness in a murder trial later dies before the trial has even begun? (California, United States of America)
