Return to CALJIC Part 5-8 – Contents
F 5.15 n1 Self-Defense: Sua Sponte Duty To Instruct.
[See Brief Bank # B-922 and Opinion Bank # O-314 for briefing and an unpublished opinion addressing this issue.]
F 5.15a
Self-Defense: Specification Of Prosecution’s Burden
*Add to CJ 5.15:
It is not necessary for the defendant to establish self-defense by evidence sufficient to satisfy the jury that the self-defense was true, but if the evidence is sufficient to leave you with a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was justified, then [he] [she] is entitled to an acquittal.
Points and Authorities
EC 502 requires the court to “instruct the jury as to which party bears the burden of proof on each issue ….” (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]; see also U.S. v. Pierre (9th Cir. 2001) 254 F3d 872, 875-877 [district court’s failure to instruct jury that government had burden of disproving defendant’s claim of self-defense (9th Cir. Crim. Jury Instr. 6.7: search for “6.7 Self-Defense”) required reversal].) In People v. Sanchez (47) 30 C2d 560 [184 P2d 673], the court held that a defendant is entitled to the above instruction on request, when “the evidence warrants submitting the issue to the jury ….” (Sanchez 30 C2d at 571.)
It has been suggested that the function performed by the Sanchez instruction is now fulfilled by CJ 5.15. (See People v. Adrian (82) 135 CA3d 335, 342 [185 CR 506].) However, there is certainly no reason why CJ 5.15 should not be modified to include part or all of the Sanchez instruction upon request. The Sanchez instruction acts as a pinpoint instruction amplifying a theory of the defense (Adrian 135 CA3d at 339) and the defendant should have the right to choose the language of such a pinpoint instruction provided it is legally correct. Hence, the Sanchez language — which has been held to be legally correct by the California Supreme Court — should be given upon request.
Failure to adequately instruct upon a defense or defense theory implicates the defendant’s state (Art. I, § 15 and § 16) and federal (6th and 14th Amendments) constitutional rights to trial by jury, compulsory process and due process. [See generally, FORECITE PG VII(C).]
ALTERNATIVE FORM:
The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that __________ did not act in self-defense. You must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] [she] was not acting in self-defense before you may convict [him] [her]. If from all the circumstances of the case you have a reasonable doubt whether __________ was acting in self-defense, you must give [him] [her] the benefit of the doubt and find [him] [her] not guilty.
Points and Authorities
(People v. Sears (70) 2 C3d 180, 190 [84 CR 711]; People v. Banks (77) 67 CA3d 379, 384 [137 CR 652].)
NOTES
[See Brief Bank # B-660 for additional briefing addressing this issue.]
