Opinion ID: 1122547
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Special instruction A: testimony of an informant

Text: (26) Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury pursuant to special instruction A, which would have cautioned the jury to examine with greater care the testimony of an informer. [20] This instruction was patterned upon the federal rule that requires the giving of a cautionary instruction regarding the testimony of an informant when that testimony furnishes the only strong evidence of guilt. ( United States v. Patterson (9th Cir.1981) 648 F.2d 625, 630-631.) Defendant contends the giving of this instruction was required because the prosecution's case relied upon the testimony of five witnesses who stated that defendant had confessed to the murders. The federal rule supporting defendant's proposed instruction differs from the law applied in California's state courts. (Evid. Code, § 411; [21] People v. Alcala, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 623.) This court previously has upheld the refusal to give a similar, cautionary instruction regarding the trustworthiness of an immunized witness's testimony. ( People v. Hunter (1989) 49 Cal.3d 957, 977-978 [264 Cal. Rptr. 367, 782 P.2d 608]; see also People v. Payton (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1050, 1059 [13 Cal. Rptr.2d 526, 839 P.2d 1035] [rejecting claim that trial court erred in failing to instruct on its own motion that testimony of a jailhouse informant should be viewed with suspicion and distrust]; People v. Castro (1979) 99 Cal. App.3d 191, 196-197 [160 Cal. Rptr. 156] [appellate court rejected instruction identical to that proposed here].) The jury in the present case received adequate standard instructions on the credibility of witnesses. (CALJIC Nos. 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23.) The trial court therefore did not err in refusing to give the special instruction requested by the defense.