Opinion ID: 1133414
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial court's refusal to give defendant's pinpoint instructions

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing three defense instructions that, according to defendant, pinpointed the defense theory. Upon request, a trial court must give jury instructions that `pinpoint[] the theory of the defense,' but it can refuse instructions that highlight `specific evidence as such.' ( People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137, 248 Cal.Rptr. 600, 755 P.2d 1049; see People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119, 2 Cal. Rptr.2d 364, 820 P.2d 588.) Because the latter type of instruction invite[s] the jury to draw inferences favorable to one of the parties from specified items of evidence, it is considered argumentative and therefore should not be given. ( People v. Gordon, supra, 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1276, 270 Cal.Rptr. 451, 792 P.2d 251; accord, People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 437, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388.) Here, two of the defense instructions, labeled instruction Q and instruction Q-2, were plainly argumentative and thus properly rejected by with trial court. [9] The third instruction read: Evidence has been offered that a third party is the perpetrator of the charged offense. It is not required that the defendant prove this fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to be entitled to a verdict of acquittal, it is only required that such evidence raise a reasonable doubt in your minds of the defendant's guilt. Even assuming that this proposed instruction accurately pinpointed the defense theory, defendant suffered no prejudice from the trial court's refusal to give it. The jury was instructed under CALJIC No. 2.90 that the prosecution had to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury knew from defense counsel's argument the defense theory that Dennis Morgan, not defendant, had committed the crimes. Under these circumstances, it is not reasonably probable that had the jury been given defendant's proposed pinpoint instruction, it would have come to any different conclusion in this case. ( People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836-837, 299 P.2d 243.)