Source: http://duilawyerlosangeles.com/for-attorneys/pa-supporting-defendants-request-for-special-jury-instructions/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:38:27+00:00

Document:
A trial judge, when considering instructions to the jury, shall give no less consideration to those submitted by the attorneys for the respective parties than to those contained in the latest edition of CALJIC. Cal. Rules of Court, Appendix, Division I, Section 5.
Defendant is entitled upon request to an instruction relating particular facts to any legal issue. People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180 at 190, 84 Cal.Rptr. 711. Such a requested instruction may relate the reasonable doubt standard for proof of guilt to particular elements of the crime charged or may pinpoint the crux of a defendant’s case. The court is under an “obligation to instruct on defenses… and on the relationship of these defenses to the elements of the charged offense… where… it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense,… ” People v. Stewart (1976) 16 Cal.3d 133, 140; People v. Flannel, 25 Cal.3d 668, 680, 681; People v. St. Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531.
If the court gives instructions on presumptions (see e.g., CALCRIM 2110 and 2111) as requested by the prosecution then it would violate the requirement of balance and would implicate due process principles (see generally Wardius v. Oregon (73) 412 US 470 [37 LEd2d 82; 93 SCt 2208]) to relegate to argument analogous defense instructions. (See also People v. Williams (1997) 55 CA4th 648, 652, 64 CR2d 203.
1 Similarly, the defense has the right to instruction on the defense theories of the case. (See generally Mathews v. United States (1988) 485 US 58, 63 [108 SCt 883; 99 LEd2d 54]; Conde v. Henry (9th Cir. 1999) 198 F3d 734, 739.) Such defense theories can range from affirmative defenses such as self defense to evidentiary theories based on logic or reasonable inference such as good character.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.