iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			BankruptcyCode.US
						Law Dictionary			iBusiness Center.US
						Constitutional Right To Present Evidence			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal-Home

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Constitutional Right To Present Evidence
(Woodward)

Constitutional Right To Present Evidence
(Woodward)

A.  General Principles

     “In deciding whether an instruction is erroneous, we ascertain at the threshold what the relevant law provides.  We next determine what meaning the charge conveys in this regard.  Here the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction.  [Citation.]  In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety.  [Citation.]  Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.”  (People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487.) 

     The trial court has a duty to instruct on all applicable principles of law, including defenses.  The right to present a defense is a component of the federal guarantee of due process of law.  “Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Chambers v. Mississippi [(1973) 410 U.S. 284, 302 [35 L.Ed.2d 297, 312-313]], or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment [citations], the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’  [Citations.]”  (Crane v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 683, 690 [90 L.Ed.2d 636, 645].) 

     The trial court should give amplifying or clarifying instructions when the terms used in an instruction “‘have a “technical meaning peculiar to the law.”’”  (People v. Valenzuela (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 381, 393, overruled on other grounds in People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 484, 490, fn. 12; People v. Richie (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1360.)  If a word is “‘commonly understood by those familiar with the English language and is not used in a technical sense peculiar to the law, the court is not required to give an instruction as to its meaning in the absence of a request.’”  (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 270-271.)

     In this case, the amplifying instruction was given at the prosecution’s request, over objection, not in response to an inquiry.  In order to determine whether this instruction was erroneous, it is necessary to examine the current state of the law concerning what is usually termed the “scientific research defense” to obscenity possession.  (See discussion in 400 E. Baltimore St., Inc. v. State (Md.Ct.App. 1981) 431 A.2d 682, 690-692 (400 E. Baltimore).) People v. Woodward 3/8/04 CA3 C041318      
 

========================================================================

Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents | California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com |United Statea News
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com | Library of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission 
California Civil Procedure.Com | Federal Civil Procedure.Com