Opinion ID: 1172016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Instruction on Other Accomplices

Text: (11) One of the court's instructions (CALJIC No. 2.11.5) provided: There has been evidence in this case indicating that a person other than defendant was or may have been involved in the crime for which defendant is on trial. You must not discuss or give any consideration as to why the other person is not being prosecuted in this trial or whether he has or will be prosecuted. Defendant claims this instruction was prejudicial error because [o]bviously, if the jury was not permitted to consider the reasons for Thomas not being on trial, for any purpose, it certainly was not permitted to consider them for purposes of determining Thomas' credibility. Defendant's claim must fall. The instruction obviously was directed toward Shelton, who took the stand only to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Moreover, it was obvious to the jury that Thomas was not being prosecuted in the same proceeding as defendant because, as defense counsel made clear, Thomas was the state's chief witness and had already pleaded guilty. The court, therefore, did not err in instructing in the language of CALJIC No. 2.11.5. Even assuming arguendo that error occurred, such error was clearly harmless given the related instructions calling for distrust of accomplice Thomas's testimony.