iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			BankruptcyCode.US
						Law Dictionary			iBusiness Center.US
						Instructional Confusion			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal-Home

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
 Court Duty to Clear Up Any Instructional Confusion
(People v. Gonzales)

Penal Code section 1138-Court Duty to Clear Up Any Instructional ConfusionPenal Code 1138
(People v. Gonzales)

DISCUSSION

I. The Reasonable Doubt Instruction.

            Appellants argue that the trial court failed to adequately define reasonable doubt for the jury.  The trial court gave the standard reasonable doubt instruction, which was based upon the version of CALJIC No. 2.90 revised in 1994.  Reasonable doubt was defined in the instruction as “not a mere possible doubt,” but a “state of the case which . . . leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.”  During deliberations, the jury requested a definition of the term “abiding conviction,” and asked, “Is there any further instruction regarding reasonable doubt?”  After consultation with counsel the court responded that reasonable doubt was “defined in CALJIC 2.90,” and the definition “cannot be further clarified.”  The jury later repeated the request for a definition of “the word ‘abiding’ as it pertains to abiding conviction,” and asked if “the written definition . . . from a dictionary” could be consulted.  The court again advised the jury that the term abiding conviction cannot be clarified “beyond its basic terms,” and denied the jury “the use of a dictionary.”  Appellants assert that by failing to provide the jury with a further definition of “abiding conviction” as used in the reasonable doubt instruction the trial court denied them due process of law and violated its instructional duty under Penal Code section 1138.[7]

            We proceed with our analysis from the established premise that CALJIC No. 2.90 is not constitutionally flawed.  The reasonable doubt instruction given by the trial court was modeled after suggestions made and approved by the California Supreme Court in People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 504 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249].  (See also People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 652 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392]; People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 347 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846].)  As an intermediate appellate court we are bound to follow the decision of this state’s highest court, which expressly authorized the particular version of the jury instruction on reasonable doubt given in the present case.  (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937]; People v. Sanchez (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1451 [69 Cal.Rptr.2d 16].)  We again join with the legion of other decisions that have consistently and conclusively found no constitutional infirmity or other defect in the instruction.  (Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 10-17 [114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583]; People v. Hearon (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1287 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d 424]; People v. Godwin (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1571-1572 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 545]; People v. Barillas (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1022 [57 Cal.Rptr.2d 166]; People v. Carroll (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 892, 895-896 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 868]; People v. Hurtado (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 805, 815-816 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 853]; People v. Tran (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 253, 262-263 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 650]; People v. Light (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 879, 889 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 218]; People v. Torres (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1073, 1077-1078 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 77].) 

            We turn to appellants’ complaint that the trial court violated its “mandatory” duty to clarify the instruction and further define the term “abiding conviction” as requested by the jury.  “We recognize that, under California statutory law, a trial court is required to instruct a deliberating jury on its request ‘on any point of law arising in the case.’  (Pen. Code, § 1138.)”[8]  (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 746 [94 Cal.Rptr.2d 396, 996 P.2d 46].)  Under Penal Code “section 1138 the court must attempt ‘to clear up any instructional confusion expressed by the jury.’  [Citation.]”  (People v. Giardino (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 454, 465 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 315].)  “This means the trial ‘court has a primary duty to help the jury understand the legal principles it is asked to apply.  [Citation.]  This does not mean the court must always elaborate on the standard instructions.  Where the original instructions are themselves full and complete, the court has discretion under [Penal Code] section 1138 to determine what additional explanations are sufficient to satisfy the jury’s request for information.  [Citation.]  . . .’  [Citation.]”  (People v. Solis (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1015 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 464]; see also People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 985 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171]; People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 522 [41 Cal.Rptr.2d 826, 896 P.2d 119].)  Penal Code section 1138 does not demand elaboration upon the standard instructions by the trial court when the jury expresses confusion, but rather directs the court to “consider how it can best aid the jury and decide whether further explanation is desirable, or whether the reiteration of previously given instructions will suffice.”  (People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1331 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 256].)

            Here, the trial court did not disregard its statutory duty to offer assistance to the jury.  (Cf., People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 97 [279 Cal.Rptr. 276, 806 P.2d 1311]; People v. Solis, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1015; People v. Moore, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1331.)  Rather, upon consideration of the jury’s requests for explication of the reasonable doubt standard, and particularly the definition of “abiding conviction” in CALJIC No. 2.90, the trial court properly determined that no amplification of the instruction was necessary or appropriate, and directed the jury to the standard CALJIC No. 2.90 instruction.  Reasonable doubt is not a standardless concept, and is defined in CALJIC No. 2.90 in terms that have repeatedly and uniformly been found adequate to satisfy constitutional principles without elaboration.  (See People v. Lewis, supra, 25 Cal.4th 610, 652; People v. Freeman, supra, 8 Cal.4th 450, 504; People v. Sanchez, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1451; People v. Aguilar (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1208-1209 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 619].)  The court was understandably and astutely reluctant to deviate from the approved standard definition of reasonable doubt, particularly where the instruction was full and complete on its own.  (People v. Solis, supra, at p. 1015; People v. Moore, supra, at p. 1331.)  “Comments that diverge from the standard jury instruction are often risky to undertake.”  (People v. Briscoe (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 568, 589 [112 Cal.Rptr.2d 401].)  We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to depart from the standard instruction with additional comment, and fulfilled its duty under Penal Code section 1138.  (People v. Noguera (1992) 4 Cal.4th 599, 643 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d 1160]; People v. Moore, supra, at p. 1331; People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 16, 25 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 258].)  People v. Gonzales (March 24 2004)CA1/1 A099987

[8] Section 1138 provides in pertinent part, “After the jury have retired for deliberation, . . . if they desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the case, they must require the officer to conduct them into court.  Upon being brought into court, the information required must be given . . . .”
(People v. Gonzales (March 24 2004)CA1/1 A099987)

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