Tag Archives: CJ 2.16

CC 373 Improperly Implies That The Dog’s Identification Of The Defendant Or Location Is A “Fact”
August 30th, 2019

CC 373 instructs as follows: You have received evidence about the use of a tracking dog. You may not conclude that the defendant is the person who committed the crime based only on the fact that a dog indicated the defendant [or a location]. Before you may rely on dog tracking evidence, there must be: […]

Tags: , ,

CALJIC 2.16 Properly Instructs Jury on Dog Scent Evidence; Instruction Is Not Required Sua Sponte
July 30th, 2019

In People v. Westerfield (2019) 6 Cal. 5th 632 evidence that a cadaver dog had “alerted” to a scent in defendant’s motorhome was admitted before the jury.  The jury was instructed pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.16 that dog tracking evidence is not sufficient by itself to permit an inference that the defendant is guilty of […]

Tags: , ,