SERIES 300 EVIDENCE
F 362.4 Falsehood: Reverse Instructions
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 362.4 Inst 1 Absence Of Falsehood
F 362.4 Inst 2 FalsehoodC Application To Third Party
F 362.4 Inst 3 FalsehoodC By The Police Or Prosecution
F 362.4 Inst 4 FalsehoodC Attempted By The Police Or Prosecution
Return to Series 300 Table of Contents.
F 362.4 Inst 1 Absence Of Falsehood
See FORECITE F 372.4 Inst 1 (a-d).
F 362.4 Inst 2 Falsehood—Application To Third Party
*Add to CC 362:
Evidence that before this trial __________ <name of suspected third party> willfully made a false or misleading statement concerning the crime[s] for which defendant is now being tried is a circumstance tending to prove a consciousness of guilt on the part of __________ <name of third party>. Such conduct may be sufficient by itself to leave you with a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. However, its weight and significance, if any, are matters for your determination.
Points and Authorities
Right To Defense Theory Instructions Generally.—See FORECITE F 315.1.2 Inst 2.
Right To Instruction On Third Party Guilt.—It is well established that the defendant may rely upon the theory that a third party committed the charged offense. (People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 C3d 983, 1017; People v. Hall (1986) 41 C3d 826, 833.) It is also well settled that the defendant has a right to pinpoint instructions upon his/her theory of the defense and upon the applicability of the burden of proof to that theory. (People v. Saille (1991) 54 C3d 1103, 1120; People v. Wright (1985) 45 C3d 1126, 1136-37; People v. Adrian (1982) 135 CA3d 335, 342; EC 502; FORECITE PG III(A) & PG III(D).) Therefore, when evidence of third-party culpability has been presented, the defense has a right to an instruction upon third-party culpability. (See FORECITE F 3400 (F 4.020).)
These same principles require that, if the evidence of third-party culpability theory includes consciousness of guilt on the part of the third party, then the standard consciousness of guilt instructions should be modified to pinpoint this theory of the defense.
Alone Sufficient To Leave Jurors With A Reasonable Doubt.—See FORECITE F 301 Inst 13.
Identification Of Parties.—See FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1.
WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]
FORECITE CG 4.1 [Right To Instruct The Jurors On Defense Theories]
FORECITE CG 4.5 [Right To Present Evidence And Fair Opportunity To Defend]
FORECITE CG 6.5 [Instructions Must Be Balanced Between Defense and Prosecution]
In death penalty cases additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
NOTES
[See Brief Bank # B-759 for additional briefing on this issue.]
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 2.03d.
F 362.4 Inst 3 Falsehood—By The Police Or Prosecution
*Add to CC 362 when appropriate:
[Adapt from FORECITE F 371(A-4) Inst 3.]
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 371(A-4) Inst 3.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 2.03e/F 2.06b.
F 362.4 Inst 4 Falsehood—Attempted By The Police Or Prosecution
*Add to CC 362:
[Adapt from FORECITE F 371(A-4) Inst 4.]
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 371(A-4) Inst 4.
