Opinion ID: 2590211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Refusal to Give Defendant's Pinpoint Instruction on Corpus Delicti

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing his request for a special instruction specifically advising the jury that, before it could rely on the so-called death list, exhibit No. 165, as evidence of any of the charged offenses, it must first find a corpus delicti for that offense. The trial court concluded the requested instruction improperly focused the jury's attention on a particular piece of evidence. The trial court did, however, give a different instruction the defense requested, one that told the jury [i]n the present case, [the corpus delicti rule] applies to every statement of the defendant. [І] If you find that any tape recorded, written, or oral statement made by the defendant is either an admission or a confession, you may not consider that statement at all to prove the elements of any of the crimes charged, unless you have first determined that there is a corpus delicti for that crime. [І] In other words, you may not rely at all on any statement of the defendant's to establish the corpus delicti of any crime charged. The court also instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 2.72, setting forth the corpus delicti rule. We conclude the trial court did not err in refusing to give the instruction specifically referring to the list. The instruction was, as the trial court reasoned, argumentative, in that it focused the jury's attention on a particular piece of evidence. ( People v. Wright, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1137, 248 Cal.Rptr. 600, 755 P.2d 1049.) Further, even if the ruling could be said to be erroneous, defendant suffered no prejudice, as the substance of the refused instruction was conveyed through the special instruction the trial court did give. The jury could have been under no misunderstanding regarding the use it could properly make of the list, and it is not reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a more favorable result had the requested instruction been given. ( People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836, 299 P.2d 243.)