Opinion ID: 1454621
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Omitted Instructions on Witness Credibility, Oral Admissions, Evaluation of the Evidence, and Reasonable Doubt

Text: (43) Defendant faults the trial court for declining to give certain requested instructions relating to evaluation of the evidence presented at trial. Again, we find no reversible error in any of defendant's contentions. Although an instruction on the failure to explain or deny evidence directed to all witnesses as opposed to just defendant would have been appropriate in this case, we have previously rejected defendant's argument that the failure to frame the instruction in this way is prejudicial. ( People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 681-684 [156 Cal. Rptr. 871, 597 P.2d 130].) [14] Moreover, the court instructed the jury that it could consider prior inconsistent statements as bearing on a witness's credibility. That instruction effectively allowed defendant to argue and the jury to consider the credibility of other witnesses, including Barrett and Eckstrom, based on their testimony as compared with their prior out-of-court versions of events. It remedied any deficiency that might have occurred in this area. [15] Defendant further challenges the trial court's rejection of his instruction that the jury should view with distrust the evidence offered by a party if that party had the ability to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence. He points to observations by his trial counsel that the prosecution did not produce in evidence any analysis of the types of blood found on certain rocks. But defendant fails to explain how this evidence was stronger or how its introduction could have aided his cause. Because defendant has not shown that the instruction he proposed related to a material matter, his assignment of error fails. (See People v. Simms (1970) 10 Cal. App.3d 299, 312-313 [89 Cal. Rptr. 1].) Defendant also asks us to find error in the trial court's failure to give his instruction that no class of evidence is more subject to error or abuse than evidence of an oral admission and that witnesses are generally unable to state the exact language of an admission. As phrased, the instruction was exaggerated and argumentative. We find no error in its exclusion from the charge. ( People v. Rice (1976) 59 Cal. App.3d 998, 1004 [131 Cal. Rptr. 330].) Finally, defendant claims the trial court erred in failing to give his proposed instruction on reasonable doubt. The trial court included in its instructions CALJIC No. 2.90, which is based on section 1096 and has been recognized as a constitutionally sound description of reasonable doubt. ( People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 881 [251 Cal. Rptr. 227, 760 P.2d 423]; People v. Rubalcava (1988) 200 Cal. App.3d 295, 300-301 [246 Cal. Rptr. 75].) No additional instructions on reasonable doubt were necessary. (§ 1096a; People v. Williams (1970) 10 Cal. App.3d 638, 644 [89 Cal. Rptr. 143].)