Tag Archives: CC 332


Limiting Instruction Does Not Cure Confrontation Error
November 30th, 2022

In People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23 the gang enhancements were reversed under People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 because the prosecution gang officer testified to testimonial hearsay, specifically, “numerous contacts between police officers and defendants based on police reports he did not author…, [and which] were made to document completed crimes such […]


Tags: , , , ,


DNA: Strmix® Probabilistic Genotyping Technology Satisfies The Kelly Standard (People v. Davis (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 694)
May 25th, 2022

–STRmix® is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community   –Court could rely on validation witness with vested interest in the technology   –Proprietary software can achieve general acceptance without disclosure of source code –Technology with subjective component can be generally accepted   –STRmix® not vulnerable to Evidence Code § 352 objection   –Not an […]


Tags: , , ,


Proper to Tell Jury to Use Magnifying Glass to Examine Exhibit Photos
April 21st, 2020

Jury conduct that amounts to critical examination of the evidence admitted, as opposed to conduct resulting in the acquisition of new evidence, is not juror misconduct. Improper experiments by the jury are those that allow the jury to discover new evidence by considering areas not examined during trial. Conduct that is simply a more critical […]


Tags: , , ,


Is There a Disconnect Between the CALCRIM Expert Witness Instructions (CC 332 and CC 360) and People V. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665
June 22nd, 2018

In its March 2018 revision of CC 360 CALCRIM added a citation to Sanchez but failed to explain the crucial changes that case made to the law regarding an expert’s reliance on hearsay. Nor did Calcrim suggest any revisions to the instructional language in light of Sanchez. Furthermore, as to CC 332 [Expert Witness Testimony] […]


Tags: , , ,


Sample Instructions: Use Of The Term “Expert“ In Jury Instruction As Improper Comment On The Evidence
April 6th, 2017

In this prior post it was suggested that the term “expert” should not be used when referring to witnesses in the jury instructions. Below is a non-exhaustive list of sample instructions which eliminate the term “expert” from the instructions: F 332 Inst 7 (a-d) Deletion Of The Term “Expert” From Expert Witness Instruction *Modify CC […]


Tags: , , ,


Use Of The Term “Expert“ In Jury Instruction As Improper Comment On The Evidence
April 6th, 2017

As recently recognized by the United States Supreme Court, the effect of testimony on a jury can be “heightened due to the source of the testimony.” (Buck v. Davis (2/22/2017) ___US___[187 Led 2d 35].) For example, when testimony in a death penalty trial regarding the defendant’s future dangerousness comes from a “medical expert bearing the […]


Tags: , , ,


Juror Misconduct: Critical Examination of Evidence vs. Acquisition of New Evidence
July 18th, 2016

Jury conduct that amounts to critical examination of the evidence admitted, as opposed to conduct resulting in the acquisition of new evidence, is not juror misconduct. Improper experiments by the jury are those that allow the jury to discover new evidence by considering areas not examined during trial. Conduct that is simply a more critical […]


Tags: , , ,