Instruction Bank # I-858
CAVEAT: The file below was not prepared by FORECITE. FORECITE has not made any attempt to review or edit this material and is not responsible for its content or format. FORECITE cannot guarantee the information is complete, accurate or up-to-date. You are advised to conduct your own independent, comprehensive research on all issues addressed in the material below.
Battered Woman Syndrome Proposed Jury Instructions
Submitted By:
Christie S. Warren
Office of Public Defender
Sacramento County
700-H Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 440-6411
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 1
REQUESTED BY ___________________________ GIVEN ___________________________
GIVEN AS MODIFIED ______________________ GIVEN ON COURT MOTION_________
REFUSED _________________________________ WITHDRAWN _____________________
______________________________
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
People v. Bush (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 294, 303
People v. Pena (1984) 151 Cal. App.3d 462
State v. Allery (1984) 101 Wash.2d 591, 594, fn. 1
One who has (a) received threats against her life or person, or (b) has suffered prior acts of violence from decedent, or (c) is aware of prior act of violence by decedent against others, is justified in acting more quickly and taking harsher measures for her own protection in the event of assault, either actual or threatened, than would be a person who had not received such threats, acts of violence or knew of acts of violence by the decedent against others.
If in this case you believe from the evidence that JOHN DOE (a) previously attacked JANE DOE, or (b) that JANE DOE was aware of previous acts of violence by JOHN DOE against others, and that JANE DOE as a result thereof had reasonable cause to fear greater peril from an altercation with JOHN DOE than she otherwise should have, you are to take such factors and circumstances into your consideration in determining whether JANE DOE acted in a manner in which a reasonable person would act in protecting her own life or bodily safety.
Therefore, in judging JANE DOE’s actions, you should attempt to place yourself, as a reasonable person, in her position at the time of the incident and consider the circumstances existing at the time as well as those circumstances known to her which may have occurred substantially before the incident.
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 2
REQUESTED BY ___________________________ GIVEN ___________________________
GIVEN AS MODIFIED ______________________ GIVEN ON COURT MOTION_________
REFUSED _________________________________ WITHDRAWN _____________________
______________________________
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
People v. Bush (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 294, 303
People v. Pena (1984) 151 Cal. App.3d 462
State v. Allery (1984) 101 Wash.2d 591, 594, fn. 1
In judging JANE DOE’s actions, you should attempt to place yourself in her position at the time of the incident. You should therefore consider her past and present knowledge, her beliefs, the relative size and strength of the participants, JOHN DOE’s words and actions prior to the stabbing, the history of their relationship, and all other factors bearing on the reasonableness of her actions and her apprehensions at the time as they appeared to her.
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 3
REQUESTED BY ___________________________ GIVEN ___________________________
GIVEN AS MODIFIED ______________________ GIVEN ON COURT MOTION_________
REFUSED _________________________________ WITHDRAWN _____________________
______________________________
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
People v.Aris (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1178
Imminent danger, as used in these instructions, means that the danger have existed at the very time the fatal wound was inflicted. In other words, the danger must appear to the defendant as immediate and present and not prospective or even in the near future. An imminent danger is one that, from appearances, must be instantly dealt with. In determining whether a victim presents an imminent danger, the defendant is entitled to consider all of the circumstances, including the victim’s prior assaults on and threats to the defendant.
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 4
REQUESTED BY ___________________________ GIVEN ___________________________
GIVEN AS MODIFIED ______________________ GIVEN ON COURT MOTION_________
REFUSED _________________________________ WITHDRAWN _____________________
______________________________
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Evidence Code section 1103(a)
People v. Thomas (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 327
People v. Rowland (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 790
Evidence of assaultive, aggressive, or violent acts committed by JOHN DOE upon JANE DOE may be considered by you for two purposes:
(1) To prove that JOHN DOE had an assaultive, aggressive, or violent character and that he acted in conformity with such character on October 24, 1989;
(2) As relevant to JANE DOE’s honest and reasonable belief in the necessity to defend herself against death or great bodily injury at the hands of JOHN DOE.
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 5
REQUESTED BY ___________________________ GIVEN ___________________________
GIVEN AS MODIFIED ______________________ GIVEN ON COURT MOTION_________
REFUSED _________________________________ WITHDRAWN _____________________
______________________________
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
People v. Banks (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 379
People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180
The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that JANE DOE did not act in self-defense. You must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not acting in self-defense before you may convict her. If from all the circumstances of the case you have a reasonable doubt whether JANE DOE was acting in self-defense, you must give her the benefit of the doubt and find her not guilty.
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 6
REQUESTED BY ___________________________ GIVEN ___________________________
GIVEN AS MODIFIED ______________________ GIVEN ON COURT MOTION_________
REFUSED _________________________________ WITHDRAWN _____________________
______________________________
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
People v. Thomas (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 327
People v. Rowland (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 790
Evidence of the character trait for violence of JOHN DOE in the form of the opinion of people who knew him may be considered by you relevant to the issue of whether JOHN DOE was acting in conformity with his character trait for violence on October 24, 1989.
