Opinion ID: 2517324
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Witness Credibility Instructions

Text: Defendant claims the court erred by giving two instructions on witness credibility, CALJIC Nos. 2.13 and 2.24. He contends the former of these instructions unfairly bolstered the testimony of prosecution witnesses Robert James and Mark King, and the latter improperly skewed the credibility determination as to prosecution witness Delsie Noble. [6] James's testimony is described in part II.D.1., ante, at pages 1287-1288. King provided a taped interview to detectives in which he said, among other things, that defendant told King I had to smoke one of those Mexicans during a robbery. However, on the witness stand King refused to confirm nearly everything on the tape, which was played for the jury. Noble testified that defendant had told him about the killing the day after it happened. Respondent argues that defendant invited any error by requesting these instructions himself. Respondent is correct. `The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a conscious and deliberate tactical choice to request the instruction.' [Citation.] ( People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 970 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 29 P.3d 103]; accord, People v. Thornton, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 436.) Defense counsel joined the prosecutor in requesting CALJIC No. 2.13, which stated: Evidence that on some former occasion, a witness made a statement or statements that were inconsistent or consistent with his or her testimony in this trial, may be considered by you not only for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness, but also as evidence of the truth of the facts as stated by the witness on such former occasions. If you disbelieve a witness' testimony that he or she no longer remembers a certain event, such testimony is inconsistent with a prior statement or statements by him or her describing that event. (8) In his closing argument, counsel emphasized the conflicts between various witnesses' trial testimony and their prior inconsistent statements. He also specifically asked the jury to remember a taped statement by Mark King indicating that he expected a reward for incriminating defendant, which King denied at trial. Thus, counsel had a legitimate tactical purpose for requesting CALJIC No. 2.13, and the invited error rule applies. ( People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 152 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 796, 825 P.2d 781]; see also People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30].) In any event, defendant's argument is devoid of merit; he complains that the instruction unfairly refers to the truth of the facts in a prior statement, without telling the jury it could also consider the falsity of the statement. However, the instruction in no way directs the jury to accept prior statements as the truth; it merely covers the hearsay exceptions provided in Evidence Code sections 1235 and 1236, in a neutral fashion. (See People v. Wilson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1, 20-21 [73 Cal.Rptr.3d 620, 178 P.3d 1113].) CALJIC No. 2.24 told the jury: Evidence of the character of a witness for honesty or truthfulness may be considered in determining his believability. If the evidence establishes that a witness's character for honesty or truthfulness has not been discussed among those who know him, you may infer from the absence of such discussion that such character trait is good. Defense counsel specifically requested this instruction, explaining to the court that it would cover King's testimony that Delsie Noble lies all the time. Counsel's choice here was plainly `conscious and deliberate,' and it bars defendant from challenging the instruction on appeal. ( People v. Weaver, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 970.) Again, in any event, his argument is meritless. Defendant faults the instruction for not referring to a witness's character for dishonesty or untruthfulness. He underestimates the common sense of jurors.