Opinion ID: 1122547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Special instruction D: reasonable doubt

Text: (27) Defense counsel proffered special instruction D (set forth in fn. 22), directing the jury to consider specific evidentiary issues in determining the existence of reasonable doubt as to the identity of the Bautistas' killer. [22] The prosecutor objected on the ground that the instruction was argumentative. Following argument by counsel, the trial court refused the requested instruction, observing that it would confuse the jury and, for the most part, it is argumentative. The trial court's ruling was correct. In People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1135-1138 [217 Cal. Rptr. 212, 703 P.2d 1106], we rejected a special instruction that similarly pinpointed specific evidence rather than a particular theory of the defendant's case. (See also People v. Daniels, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 870-871; People v. Lucero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1006, 1020-1021 [245 Cal. Rptr. 185, 750 P.2d 1342]; People v. Adrian (1982) 135 Cal. App.3d 335, 338 [185 Cal. Rptr. 506].) Such an instruction properly is refused as argumentative because it would invite the jury to draw inferences favorable to the defendant from specified items of evidence on a disputed question of fact, and therefore properly belongs not in instructions, but in the arguments of counsel to the jury. ( People v. Wright, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1135; People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 914 [254 Cal. Rptr. 508, 765 P.2d 940].) To the extent that special instruction D could be read to embrace stated principles of law involving reasonable doubt, it was repetitious of other instructions given, notably CALJIC No. 2.90, which this court has recognized as the best available definition of the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 881 [251 Cal. Rptr. 227, 760 P.2d 423]; see also §§ 1096, 1096a.) The giving of special instruction D therefore would have confused the jury, and properly was refused on that ground as well. ( People v. Farmer, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 913.)