Opinion ID: 2600609
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Refusal to Give Additional Instruction on Lack of Motive

Text: Citing People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180, 190 [84 Cal.Rptr. 711, 465 P.2d 847], defense counsel proposed the following special jury instruction: Lack of motive is a circumstance which may be considered by the jury in determining the issue of whether or not the defendant premeditated and deliberated. The trial court refused the instruction, stating the instruction was already covered by CALJIC No. 2.51. Under appropriate circumstances, `a trial court may be required to give a requested jury instruction that pinpoints a defense theory of the case....' ( People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 99.) However, a trial court need not give a pinpoint instruction if it merely duplicates other instructions. ( Ibid. ) The trial court instructed with CALJIC No. 2.51, which states: Motive is not an element of the crime charged and need not be shown. However, you may consider motive or lack of motive as a circumstance in this case. Presence of motive may tend to establish guilt. Absence of motive may tend to establish innocence. You will therefore give its presence or absence, as the case may be, the weight to which you find it to be entitled. The principle expressed in the refused instruction (that lack of motive may be considered in determining whether defendant premeditated and deliberated) was therefore already expressed in CALJIC No. 2.51.