Opinion ID: 2551468
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Refusing to Give Instruction Based on Confinement Arrangement

Text: On the basis of his belief that the government had given Mendoza and Meza the opportunity to collude by confining them in the South Bay jail, defendant sought the following instruction: If you find the prosecution or its agents influenced or attempted to influence the testimony of witnesses who have testified in this case, you should consider such fact in evaluating the credibility of the witness and as an inference of the Defendant's innocence. The weight to be given this evidence is a matter for your determination. The trial court denied the request. Defendant claims that this refusal violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. As a matter of state law, however, we have long held that [t]he jury need not be instructed on a theory for which no evidence has been presented. ( People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 313, 6 Cal. Rptr.2d 276, 826 P.2d 274.) As stated in our discussion of defendant's contention regarding his motion to reopen, there was no such evidence. And we know of no authority creating a constitutional right to have the jury instructed on theories unsupported by evidence. (See ibid, [referring to the federal due process clause]; Neuman v. Rivers (6th Cir.1997) 125 F.3d 315, 323-324 [same]; see also Hopper v. Evans (1982) 456 U.S. 605, 611, 102 S.Ct. 2049, 72 L.Ed.2d 367 [no due process right to lesser included offense instruction unless warranted by evidence].)