 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Walsh1/18/2005
-defense (CALJIC No. 5.51); (5) the fact that the defense exists only as long as the danger exists (CALJIC No. 5.52); (6) the fact that self-defense ceases as an excuse after the attacker is disabled (CALJIC No. 5.53); (7) the limited right of an aggressor to assert self-defense (CALJIC No. 5.54); (8) the fact that a plea of self-defense may not be contrived (CALJIC No. 5.55); and (9) the limited right of a person engaging in mutual combat to assert self-defense (CALJIC No. 5.56). No less than four of those instructions advised the jury that it was required to determine the reasonableness of defendant's perception of the threat of imminent harm, based on whether a reasonable person under circumstances the same or similar to those of defendant would perceive such threat. (See CALJIC Nos. 5.30, 5.31, 5.50, 5.51.)
The jury therefore was fully instructed on defendant's theory of the case (i.e., self-defense). Defendant's claim of error that its pinpoint instruction regarding the reasonableness of defendant's justification for using force--incomplete, inaccurate (in at least one respect), and repetitive as the instruction was--is without merit.
2. Vulnerability pinpoint instruction
Defendant also requested a pinpoint instruction reading as follows: "The vulnerability of the defendant may be used to show an honest belief in peril." The court refused this instruction. Defendant--without citing to any apposite authority--contends that this was error.
As noted, ante, the court gave nine self-defense instructions, including four instructions that specifically noted that the reasonable person standard was determined by whether a reasonable person would conclude that there was an imminent threat of serious harm, based upon that reasonable person finding herself in the same or similar circumstances as defendant. Certainly, those same or similar circumstances would include defendant's physical characteristics and relative size (as compared with the victim). We thus conclude that the proposed "vulnerability" instruction was duplicative of instructions given and that there was no error by the trial court.
3. Whether any error was harmless
Assuming arguendo the existence of any error by the court in rejecting the pinpoint instructions, under the Watson standard, we will reverse the judgment "only if also find a reasonable probability the error affected the verdict adversely to defendant. [Citations.]" (Humphrey, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1089; see also People v. Romero, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 856-857.) Here, we conclude that, even assuming the propriety of the pinpoint instructions, any error in rejecting them was harmless.
As we have noted, the court instructed the jury fully on the issue of self-defense, including the requirement that the jury view the reasonableness of the perceived threat from the standpoint of a reasonable person faced with circumstances the same or similar to those experienced by defendant. Although we conclude there was no error, assuming the existence of a duty to give the proposed instructions, their omission was decidedly harmless. The jury was informed that it must consider the reasonableness of defendant's belief of an imminent threat of harm from the standpoint of a reasonable person faced with circumstances the same or similar to those defendant encountered. Those same or similar circumstances certainly included defendant's vulnerability (if any), her physical characteristics (compared with those of her supposed attacker, Amber), any threats by Amber, and any prior acts of violence by Amber.
Moreover, defendant had adequate opportunity to argue--and, in fact, did argue at length--those fact
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|