Opinion ID: 2544661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pinpoint Instruction on Consent to Taking

Text: Defendant requested, but the trial court refused to give, the following special instruction: If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant obtained the property in question without consent, then you must give the defendant the benefit of that doubt. In requesting the special instruction, defense counsel explained that the purpose was to focus the jury's attention on one element of robbery and to relate that element to the reasonable doubt standard of proof. In refusing the instruction, the trial court noted that jury instructions should not highlight one side or the other, and that the point was covered by other instructions. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in so ruling, and that the error deprived him of a right under the federal Constitution to be acquitted absent proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We have suggested that in appropriate circumstances a trial court may be required to give a requested jury instruction that pinpoints a defense theory of the case by, among other things, relating the reasonable doubt standard of proof to particular elements of the crime charged. ( People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 885, 123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247; accord, People v. Lucero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1006, 1021, 245 Cal.Rptr. 185, 750 P.2d 1342.) But a trial court need not give a pinpoint instruction if it is argumentative ( People v. Mincey, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 437, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388), merely duplicates other instructions ( People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 152, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 P.3d 357), or is not supported by substantial evidence ( People v. Marshall, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 39 40, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 84, 931 P.2d 262). An instruction that does no more than affirm that the prosecution must prove a particular element of a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt merely duplicates the standard instructions defining the charged offense and explaining the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a trial court is required to give a requested instruction relating the reasonable doubt standard of proof to a particular element of the crime charged only when the point of the instruction would not be readily apparent to the jury from the remaining instructions. Here, the jury received accurate and complete instructions on the prosecution's burden of proof and on the elements of robbery, including the requirement that the taking of property be without the alleged victim's consent. Thus, the point of the requested instruction was readily apparent from the instructions given, and nothing in the particular circumstances of this case suggested a need for additional clarification. The trial court did not err in refusing to give this requested pinpoint instruction.