Tag Archives: Cautionary and Limiting Instructions


What is a Developmental Disability for Purposes of Giving Witness Cautionary Instruction (CC 331)?
November 20th, 2018

Pursuant to PC 1127g, CC 331 provides specific guidance on evaluating the testimony of persons with “developmental, cognitive, or mental disability.”   However, the statutory language does not define the terms “developmental disability” or “cognitive, mental, or communication impairment.” In such cases it is appropriate to look to the legislative history for guidance. In so […]


Tags: ,


CC 105 Is Correctly Given When Evidence Is Conflicting as to Whether a Witness’s Character for Untruthfulness Was Discussed
August 4th, 2016

In People v. Jimenez (2016) 246 CA4th 726 the trial court properly instructed jury that it could conclude the character for truthfulness of a witness (the alleged victim) was good based on lack of discussion of character in community where one witness (Hoffman) testified regarding lack of discussion, but other witnesses testified that the witness […]


Tags: , , ,


Jury Should Consider Defendant’s Mental Impairment in Deciding Whether False Statements Showed Consciousness of Guilt
August 2nd, 2016

In People v. McGehee (2016) 246 CA4th 1190 the defense argued that McGehee suffered from schizophrenic delusions involving demons and that he killed his mother during such an episode. The jury was instructed that if McGehee made any false or misleading statements related to the crime, that conduct may show consciousness of guilt. (CC 362.) […]


Tags: , , , , ,


Cautionary Instruction on Defendant’s Statements Not Required Sua Sponte
July 26th, 2016

In People v. Diaz (2015) 60 C4th 1176 the California Supreme Court reconsidered the requirement that the cautionary principle reflected in CALJIC 2.71.7 [now CC 358] must be given sua sponte. The Court decided that “in light of a change in the law that requires the general instructions on witness credibility to be given sua […]


Tags: , ,


Judge Has Sua Sponte duty to Give Cautionary Instruction re: Jury Conduct But Standard of Prejudice Not Resolved
July 19th, 2016

In People v. Carter (2010) 182 CA4th 522, 531-534 the reviewing court held that the failure to give CC 101 sua sponte was error. However, the parties disagreed on whether the harmless error analysis should be governed by People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [not reasonably probable a more favorable result would have […]


Tags: , , , , ,


In Custody Informant Should Be Treated Like an Accomplice
April 20th, 2015

  When the CC Committee revised CC 336 in August of 2012, it stated that “The legislature enacted Penal Code section 1111.5 requiring that the testimony of an in-custody informant be treated in a manner similar to that of an accomplice.” The committee revised CC 336, In-Custody Informant, accordingly, borrowing heavily from CC 334 and […]


Tags: , , ,


Evidence Limited to Courtroom: Sua Sponte Duty to Admonish
April 10th, 2015

  The court has a sua sponte duty to give CC 101, limiting jurors to considering evidence that is presented in the courtroom. (See People v. Carter (2010)182 Cal. App. 4th 522.)   It is critical that jurors be instructed that they cannot conduct any independent research on a case and should not discuss the […]


Tags: , , , ,


CC 1403 Limited Purpose Of Evidence Of Gang Activity
July 30th, 2014

  In People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 1148, the defendant argued that it was improper to instruct the jury with CC 1403 because it allowed the jury to consider gang expert testimony as to motive and witness credibility under the optional clauses of CC 1403.   The Court of Appeal disagreed stating […]


Tags: , ,


In-Custody Informant
March 30th, 2014

  If the witness is an in-custody informant, CC 336 should be given upon request, as well as CC 337, which cautions jurors not to consider the reason the witness is in custody. Regarding CC 337, the Court of Appeal has held this instruction should not be given unless the shackles are visible to the […]


Tags: , , ,