Opinion ID: 1205096
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Multiple Descriptions

Text: (26) Defendant requested that the jury be instructed as follows: Did the witness give a description of the offender immediately after the alleged crime? If so how well does the defendant fit that description? The trial court declined to give the requested instruction, concluding that the subject of that request was adequately addressed by two factors listed in CALJIC No. 2.92, i.e., The witness' ability following the observation to provide a description of the perpetrator of the act and [t]he extent to which the defendant either fits or does not fit the description of the perpetrator previously given by the witness. Defendant now complains that the instruction the trial court gave is designed for the case in which the eyewitness gives only one description of the perpetrator, not multiple descriptions as did Angela. Defendant argues that by not acknowledging that the jury should consider whether a description given at the scene of the crime might deserve a different weight than a description given weeks or months later, the instructions indicated that Dr. Loftus's views were unrecognized by the law. Defendant's contention is incorrect. The instruction given does not limit the jury to consideration of any one description Angela might have provided. The jury was free to consider the extent to which defendant matched any of Angela's descriptions of the perpetrators. In fact, defendant's proposed instruction would have been susceptible to the criticism that it lay undue stress on Dr. Loftus's testimony that a description given nearer in time to an event is more reliable than one given at a later time. The trial court did not err in refusing it. In sum, the identification instruction given by the trial court met the requirements set forth in People v. Wright, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pages 1141, 1143: it focused the jury's attention on facts relevant to its determination of the existence of reasonable doubt regarding identification, by listing, in a neutral manner, the relevant factors supported by the evidence, without improperly invading the domain of either jury or expert witness.