Opinion ID: 1303713
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Faulty Instructions Regarding Defendant's Failure to Explain

Text: (18) Defendant complains that the trial court at the second trial misread an instruction (CALJIC No. 2.62) in such a manner as to prejudice him. The instruction pertained to the inferences that might be drawn from a defendant's failure to explain or deny prosecution evidence of facts within his personal knowledge. It correctly explained that defendant has a constitutional right to decline to testify, but that his failure to deny or explain facts within his personal knowledge may be considered as supporting the prosecution evidence at issue. It also correctly advised that such failure to deny or explain does not create any presumption or warrant any inference of guilt, or relieve the prosecution of its proof burden. The instruction, as read to the jury, also stated, however, that if defendant lacked the knowledge needed to deny or explain prosecution evidence against him, it would be reasonable [ sic ] to draw the inference unfavorable to him because of the failure to deny or explain such evidence. Defendant correctly observes that the foregoing portion of the instruction should have used the word unreasonable rather than reasonable. Indeed, a correct version of the instruction apparently was submitted by counsel to the trial court. Nevertheless, in light of the entire instructions on the subject, it is clear that the inadvertent mistake could not have prejudiced defendant. No reasonable juror would have believed that unfavorable inferences could be drawn against defendant based on his failure to deny or explain facts unknown to him.