Opinion ID: 2639482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jury Instructions on Failure to Prosecute a Coparticipant

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in giving an instruction based on CALJIC No. 2.11.5: There has been evidence in this case indicating that a person other than the defendant was or may have been involved in the crime for which defendant is on trial. [¶] There may be many reasons why such person other than the defendant is not here on trial. Therefore, do not discuss or give any consideration as to why the other person is not being prosecuted in this trial or whether he has been or will be prosecuted. Your duty is to decide whether the People have proved the guilt of the defendant on trial. As defendant correctly observes, we have often said that trial courts should not give CALJIC No. 2.11.5 in an unmodified form when, as here, a person who might have been prosecuted for the crime has testified at trial. ( People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 162, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614, 38 P.3d 461; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 226, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710.) The impact of this mistaken instruction, however, was ameliorated because the court gave proper instructions that in assessing the credibility of witnesses the jury could consider [t]he existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive and [t]he witness' prior conviction of a felony. (CALJIC No. 2.20.) The jury was again instructed: The fact that a witness has been convicted of a felony ... may be considered ... only for the purpose of determining the credibility of the witness. (CALJIC No. 2.23.) Finally, the jury was told that the testimony of an accomplice should be viewed with mistrust. (CALJIC No. 3.18.) Relying on these instructions, defense counsel argued that the jury should not credit the testimony of Muslim and Luna because it was given to obtain favorable plea bargains. The prosecutor raised no objection. We have declined to label a mistake in the giving of CALJIC No. 2.11.5 as error when, as here, the instruction is given with the full panoply of witness credibility and accomplice instructions. ( People v. Lawley, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 162, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614, 38 P.3d 461.)