Opinion ID: 2590211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Court's Refusal to Give Requested Pinpoint Instructions Concerning Identity of Perpetrator

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing his requested instructions on the identity of the killer with respect to the counts involving Keith, Loggins, Crotwell, John Doe Huntington Beach, Klingbeil, Inderbieten, Wiebe, Moore, Crisel, Young, Nelson, DeVaul, and Gambrel, and with respect to the possibility of multiple killers with respect to the Hall and Loggins counts. We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing as argumentative the requested instructions. A defendant has the right, on request, to instructions that pinpoint the theory of the defense, not specific evidence as such. { People v. Wright, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1137, 248 Cal.Rptr. 600, 755 P.2d 1049.) The trial court properly refused the requested instructions, which merely invited the jury to draw inferences favorable to him from selected items of evidence. ( People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 437, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388.) Contrary to defendant's argument, the jury was adequately instructed, by means of CALJIC Nos. 2.90 and 2.91, that it must determine the identity of the perpetrator of each charged offense. The trial court's refusal of defendant's requested pinpoint instructions, therefore, did not deprive him of due process.