Logo
Searching Tips

When searching Forecite California, there are shortcuts you can take to find the information you are looking for:

1. By Code Section:

Forecite uses standard abbreviations for different types of codes. Those abbreviations can be found below:

Codes:
CCR California Code of Regulations
Corp C Corporations Code
EC Evidence Code
FG Fish and Game Code
GC Government Code
HN Harbors & Navigation Code
HS Health & Safety Code
PC Penal Code
RT Revenue & Tax Code
VC Vehicle Code
WI Welfare & Institutions Code

Using these codes to search is very simple. For example, if you wanted to search for Penal Code section 20, you would type PC 20 into the search box.

2. By CALJIC Number:

Since Forecite is indexed to CALJIC, searching for CALJIC numbers is easy. For example, to search for CALJIC 3.16, you would type 3.16 into the search box.

3. By Case Name or Citation:

To find a case or citation, simply enter all or part of the case’s citation. Since many cases are known only by one name involved, it is often helpful to not search for the entire citation. For example, if you were searching for references to People v. Geiger (84) 35 C3d 510, 526 [199 CR 45], you could search for People v. Geiger or just Geiger. Searching for Geiger might be more helpful since it would find references to the case that do not include the full citation.

  • Contact Us
  • Log In
  • My Account

  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts & Settlements
  • News & media
  • Blog
  • Contact

Back to  Previous Page
Back to top

Return to Practice Guide Table of Contents

PG III(A) Defendant’s Right To Directly Relate The Theory Of Defense To An Element Of The Charge.

It is generally recognized that a party has a right to have the jury instructed on its theory of the case. (See FORECITE PG V(B)(1.1).) A criminal defendant is entitled upon request to an instruction pinpointing the theory of the defense. (See People v. Ward (2005) 36 C4th 186, 214 [requested pinpoint instruction must be given if supported by substantial evidence]; People v. Wharton (91) 53 C3d 522, 570 [280 CR 631]; see also Mathews v. United States (88) 485 US 58, 63 [99 LEd2d 54; 108 SCt 883] citing Stevenson v. United States (1896) 162 US 313 [40 LEd 980; 16 SCt 839] [refusal of voluntary manslaughter instruction in murder case where self-defense was primary defense constituted reversible error]; U.S. v. Sotelo-Murillo (9th Cir. 1989) 887 F2d 176, 178-79; U.S. v. Lesina (9th Cir. 1987) 833 F2d 156, 159-60; U.S. v. Escobar de Bright (9th Cir. 1984) 742 F2d 1196, 1201.) Such an instruction may “‘direct attention to evidence from … which a reasonable doubt could be engendered.’ [Citation].” (People v. Hall (80) 28 C3d 143, 159 [167 CR 844]; People v. Sears (70) 2 C3d 180, 190 [84 CR 711]; see also People v. Gonzales (99) 74 CA4th 382, 390 [88 CR2d 111] [trial court required to instruct that defense need only raise a reasonable doubt regarding the defense of accident].) In People v. Wright (88) 45 C3d 1126, 1136-37 [248 CR 600], the court clarified this rule holding that the defendant has no right to direct the jury’s attention to specific evidence or testimony. Nevertheless, Wright specifically held that CJ 2.91 (re: eyewitness testimony) and CJ 4.50 (re: alibi) are proper pinpoint instructions. Each of those instructions calls attention, in a generic form, to the evidence upon which the defense theory is based and admonishes the jurors that if they have a reasonable doubt after considering such evidence, they must acquit. (See EC 502; see also, People v. Simon (95) 9 C4th 493, 500-01 [37 CR2d 278] [as to defense theories, the trial court is required to instruct on who has the burden and the nature of that burden].)

Hence, a requested instruction which follows the pattern of CJ 2.91 and CJ 4.50 should be given when appropriate. (See also People v. Saille (91) 54 C3d 1103, 1120 [2 CR2d 364] [Defendant has the right to a pinpoint instruction which relates “his [evidentiary theory] to an element of the offense”].)

Sufficiency Of Evidence To Support Defense Instructions. In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support defense instructions, the trial court does not consider issues of credibility, but simply whether there is “substantial evidence” to support them; that is, “evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive. [Citations.]” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 CA4th 926, 1008.) “The testimony of a single witness, including the defendant, can constitute substantial evidence” in this regard. (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 CA4th 610, 646.) Moreover, “[d]oubts as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant instructions should be resolved in favor of the accused. [Citations.]” (People v. Petznick (2003) 114 CA4th 663, 677.) “‘The fact that evidence may be incredible, or is not of a character to inspire belief, does not authorize the refusal of an instruction based thereon, for that is a question within the exclusive province of the jury.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Lemus (1988) 203 CA3d 470, 477; accord, People v. Webster (1991) 54 CA3d 411, 443; People v. Mejia-Lenares (2006) 135 CA4th 1437, 1446.)

See also FORECITE PG V(A)(6); PG X(A)(1).

  • Register as New User
  • Contact Us
© James Publishing, Inc. (866) 72-JAMES