The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction and there is probably no more important instruction that must be given. Failure to give a proper reasonable doubt instruction sua sponte may require automatic reversal. (People v. Phillips (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 952, 955-956, disapproved on other grounds by People v. Aranda (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 342.)
Defense counsel have tried to have courts modify this instruction to have the last paragraph read: “If you decide that a witness deliberately lied or inaccurately testified about something significant in this case. . .or, if you think the witness lied or inaccurately testified about some things. . ..” However, this modification has been rejected by the appellate court. (People v. Chue Vang (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 1120, 1128-1129.)
People v. Mitchell (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 442, affirmed a defendant’s conviction of multiple counts of receiving stolen property where the trial court had used CC 1750. The defendant complained on appeal that the trial court had incorrectly rejected a proposed defense instruction on unanimity and instead added a unanimity instruction which could have led the jurors to convict her of multiple counts even if the jury was unanimous with respect to only one of the stolen items she possessed. The instruction added by the court read, “You may not find the defendant guilty unless you all agree that the People have proved the defendant received, concealed or withheld from its owner at least one item of property that had been stolen and you all agree on which item of property had been received, concealed or withheld.” (Id. at 464.)
People v. Villatoro (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 1152, upheld a modified CC 1191 instruction, which stated that all offenses must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This instruction did not violate defendant’s due process rights or impermissibly lower the standard of proof even though it did not specifically address the standard of proof to be used to draw inferences from charged offenses. People v. Miramontes (2011) 189 Cal. App. 4th 1085, upheld CC 1191 against a challenge that the admission of propensity evidence violates due process. In so holding, Miramontes relied upon the prior California Supreme Court decision in People v. Reliford (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 1007, 1012-1016.
The causation instruction in CC 240 should not be used in single-perpetrator felony murder cases. CC 730 correctly specifies that felony murder encompasses a far wider range of individual culpability than other murders. (People v. Huynh (2012) 212 Cal. App. 4th 285, 310-311.)
When it revised CC 124 in August of 2012, the CC Committee stated, “Penal Code section 1122(a)(1), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1209(a)(6), now require the court to admonish jurors before each adjournment, not to use electronic or wireless communication.” Therefore the committee added such an admonition to CC 124. (Advisory Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions, Report to the Judicial Council for meeting of August 31, 2012, p. 3.)
People v. Nazary (2011) 191 Cal. App. 4th 727, held that grand larceny by an employee as defined in CC 1800 is not a lesser included offense of embezzlement. The opinion also makes clear that an employee may be convicted of both grand theft by employee as defined in CC 1800 and embezzlement as defined in CC 1806 because they have different elements.
As People v. Beaver (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 107, 122, explained: “This instruction applies to situations where a defendant physically takes property from another’s actual or constructive possession.” Thus CC 1800 does not apply where the victim merely gave the property to the defendant under false pretenses
CC 1120 is the correct instruction to give for the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 years. (People v. Sigala (2011)191 Cal App. 4th 695.)
See People v. Dement (2011) 53 Cal. 4th 1, 42.