When a defendant's out-of-court statement is admitted to a jury, does the court have to instruct the jury that this evidence must be viewed with caution?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Quintana, H038900 (Cal. App. 2014):

Where a defendant's out-of-court statements are admitted, the court must instruct the jury that this evidence must be viewed with caution. (People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1200.) However, because the purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining whether the statement was made, it may be omitted where the statement was recorded and that recording was played for the jury. (Ibid.)
We are not persuaded that the omission of the cautionary language was error. The purpose of the cautionary instruction is to provide the jury with guidance in making the determination that the defendant in fact made the statement at issue. (People v.

Page 16

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

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 whether a jury has been instructed to disregard an instruction from the Court of Appeal that is not supported by how the jury views the evidence? (California, United States of America)

In what circumstances have the courts failed to instruct a jury that a defendant cannot be convicted based on out-of-court statements? (California, United States of America)

What is the test for limiting instructions to the jury in a case where a co-defendant admitted in evidence against another defendant of the same alleged crime? (California, United States of America)

How does the Court of Appeal review a trial court's ruling to admit evidence over defendant's objection based on evidence section 352? (California, United States of America)

When will a court grant a defendant an instruction that cautions the jury that it may not draw an adverse inference from the fact that a defendant has not testified at trial? (California, United States of America)

Does a trial court's statement that it does not believe the jury is hopelessly deadlocked give the jury the impression the jury should convict defendant? (California, United States of America)

Does the trial court's instructions to the jury that the jury must conclusively accept the previous jury's finding that defendant's guilt has already been decided? (California, United States of America)

In a dual jury trial where two defendants have admitted extrajudicial statements against one defendant, what is the procedure in which one of the juries is to be excused? (California, United States of America)

When a defendant's extrajudicial statements form part of the prosecution's evidence, does the trial court have to instruct sua sponte that a finding of guilt cannot be predicated on the statements alone? (California, United States of America)

What is the effect of the Court's refusal of a defendant's request to instruct the jury not to consider specific evidence in their instructions? (California, United States of America)

When a defendant's out-of-court statement is admitted to a jury, does the court have to instruct the jury that this evidence must be viewed with caution?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources