Opinion ID: 2599941
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Refusal of proposed pinpoint instructions

Text: Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to give instructions, requested by defendant, that he could not be convicted upon mere suspicion and that mere opportunity to commit the crime is insufficient proof of guilt. These proposed instructions are restatements of the requirement that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a requirement that was fully explained to the jury in other instructions. Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing them. ( People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1134, 248 Cal.Rptr. 600, 755 P.2d 1049.) [25] Nor did the court err in refusing an instruction that directed the jury to consider, for the purpose of determining whether there was reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt, evidence that another person had the motive or opportunity to commit the crime. A defendant is entitled, upon request, to a nonargumentative instruction that pinpoints his or her theory of the case. ( People v. Wright, supra, 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1135-1136, 248 Cal.Rptr. 600, 755 P.2d 1049.) An instruction that directs the jury to `consider' certain evidence is properly refused as argumentative. ( Id. at p. 1135, 248 Cal.Rptr. 600, 755 P.2d 1049.) In a proper instruction, `[w]hat is pinpointed is not specific evidence as such, but the theory of the defendant's case.' ( Id. at p. 1137, 248 Cal.Rptr. 600, 755 P.2d 1049, quoting People v. Adrian (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 335, 338, 185 Cal.Rptr. 506.) Defendant also requested that the jury be instructed that if evidence tending to prove that a party other than defendant committed the crime raises a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt, the jury must find him not guilty. This instruction was arguably an appropriate pinpoint instruction of the type that focuses upon the defendant's theory of the case and should be given upon request. (See People v. Wright, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1137-1138, 248 Cal.Rptr. 600, 755 P.2d 1049.) But even if the trial court erred in refusing it, any error was harmless. The jury was instructed on the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and was instructed specifically that if it entertained a doubt concerning whether defendant was present at the time the crime was committed, it would have to find him not guilty. The jury also was instructed that to prove the witness-killing special circumstance, the prosecution had to prove that defendant physically aided or committed the act or acts causing death. These instructions adequately addressed the prosecution's burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant perpetrated the crimes charged. (See People v. Adrian, supra, 135 Cal.App.3d at p. 342, 185 Cal.Rptr. 506 [refusal of pinpoint instruction on defense claim of self defense was harmless where other instructions adequately conveyed that the prosecution had the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt]; People v. Gomez (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 486, 100 Cal.Rptr. 896 [refusal of instruction on reasonable doubt regarding accuracy of identification was harmless where instruction on alibi called to the jury's attention the necessity of finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was present when the offense was committed].)