Opinion ID: 2575864
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Instructions Affecting Burden of Proof

Text: Defendant contends that certain of the trial court's instructions to the jury misled the jury regarding the reasonable doubt standard of proof and impermissibly lightened the prosecution's burden of proof. He maintains that these instructions violated his federal constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial, a unanimous jury verdict, and reliable guilt and penalty determinations. We have previously rejected each of the claims that defendant makes, and we decline to reconsider these decisions. Contrary to defendant's arguments, CALJIC Nos. 2.01, 2.02, 8.83, and 8.83.1, which direct the jury to accept reasonable inferences and to reject unreasonable ones, do not permit the jury to base a determination of guilt on something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 351, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 509, 118 P.3d 545; see also People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 847, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 733, 74 P.3d 820; People v. Nakahara, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 713-714, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 68 P.3d 1190.) CALJIC No. 1.00, which directs the jury not to infer or assume that defendant was more likely to be guilty than not guilty merely because he had been arrested, charged, or brought to trial, does not undercut the burden of proof. ( People v. Crew, supra, at pp. 847-848, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 733, 74 P.3d 820; People v. Nakahara, supra, at p. 714, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 68 P.3d 1190.) CALJIC No. 2.21.2, the standard instruction on willfully false testimony, does not lighten the prosecution's burden of proof. ( People v. Cleveland, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 751, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 236, 86 P.3d 302; People v. Nakahara, supra, at p. 714, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 68 P.3d 1190; People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 428-429, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1.) CALJIC No. 2.22, the standard instruction on weighing conflicting testimony, does not undermine the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Cleveland, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 751, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 236, 86 P.3d 302; People v. Nakahara, supra, at p. 714, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 68 P.3d 1190; People v. Maury, supra, at p. 429, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1.) Finally, CALJIC No. 8.20, defining premeditation and deliberation, does not suggest that a defendant must absolutely preclude the possibility of premeditation rather than merely raising a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Nakahara, supra, at p. 715, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 68 P.3d 1190.)