Tag Archives: Defense Theories

Defense Has No Burden to Prove Any Specific Facts
July 13th, 2016

CC 100, paragraph 3, sentence 4, provides as follows: “Because (he/she/they) (is/are) presumed innocent, the defendant[s] (does/do) not have to prove that (he/she/they) (is/are) not guilty.” CC 100 is technically correct as far as it goes. (See People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 CA4th 1174, 1179.) However, it only discusses the presumption of innocence in the […]

Tags: , , , , ,

Consciousness of Guilt: False Statements–Defense Theory Of Intoxication
May 1st, 2015

In general, voluntary intoxication may not be considered for general intent crimes. (People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 1114, 1127-1128.)   However, voluntary intoxication may be relevant on the question of whether a defendant’s statements while intoxicated are probative of the defendant’s veracity within the meaning of CC 362. (People v. Wiidanen (2011) 201 […]

Tags: , , , , ,

Aider And Abettor: Natural And Probable Consequences – Right To Pinpoint Instruction On Defense Theory That Non-Target Crime Was The Independent Product Of The Perpetrator’s Mind Outside Of, Or Foreign To, The Common Design
January 30th, 2015

  People v. Smith (2014) 60 Cal. 4th 603 eliminated an element of the natural and probable consequences liability which the prosecution was required to prove by CC 402. However, in so doing Smith provided a basis for a defense pinpoint instruction relating the natural and probable consequences doctrine to evidence that the perpetrator of […]

Tags: , , , , , , ,