Opinion ID: 1351343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Instructions and argument on duty to present evidence.

Text: (37) The court instructed the jury under CALJIC No. 2.11, which states: Neither side is required to call as witnesses all persons who may have been present at any of the events disclosed by the evidence or who may appear to have some knowledge of these events, or to produce all objects or documents mentioned or suggested by the evidence. The defendant argues that this instruction is misleading. His argument is not entirely clear, but it seems to be that the instruction puts both parties on the same basis, and does not make it clear to the jury that the prosecution has the burden to present sufficient evidence to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The court rejected a similar contention in People v. Orozco (1981) 114 Cal. App.3d 435 [170 Cal. Rptr. 604]. In that case defendant asked that CALJIC No. 2.11 be modified to add language stating: This rule does not, however, diminish the burden of the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. (114 Cal. App.3d at p. 448.) The court replied that the instructions defining the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, and burden of proof were sufficient. We agree; the inference defendant fears the jury would draw from the language of CALJIC No. 2.11 is quite strained, and should be dispelled by proper instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (38) Defendant further complains that the prosecutor, acknowledging that he had failed to prove the origin of bloodstains in the hallway and on the carpet, said that the defense can't say that's not defendant's blood. It would have been nice to have it [the carpet] analyzed early on, but, you see, it's not just the fault of the prosecution, because the defense had access to this material too. Defendant first argues that the assertion that the defense can't say that's not defendant's blood is an improper reference to defendant's failure to testify. In context, however, it seems to be a comment on the failure of the defense to present scientific evidence analyzing the blood. Defendant argues with more force that the prosecutor's statement was unfair, because by the time defendant was arrested and counsel was appointed, it might have been too late for the defense to conduct an analysis of the stains on the wall and carpet. That contention, however, is barred by defendant's failure to object to the prosecutor's statement when it was made. (See People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 34-35 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) Moreover, even if defendant had objected, and succeeded in having the comment stricken, it is not reasonably probable that the outcome of the trial would have been affected.