substantially similar pattern instruction in California

2026“CALCRIM No. 361 rests on the logical inference that if a person charged with a crime is given the opportunity to explain or deny evidence against him or her but fails to do so, then that evidence may be entitled to added weight. [Citation.] The focus of the instruction, ‘as its language indicates, is not on the defendant’s credibility as a witness, but on the role of a testifying defendant’s failure to explain or deny incriminating evidence in how jurors “evaluat[e] that evidence,” i.e., the evidence the defendant has failed to explain or deny.’ [Citations.] However, in discussing a substanti

2019Code, § 413 ["In determining what inferences to *606 draw from the evidence or facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the party's failure to explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his willful suppression of evidence relating thereto, if such be the case."].) However, in discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction-CALJIC No. 2.62-our high court recognized " '[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must ap

2019Code, § 413 ["In determining what inferences to *606 draw from the evidence or facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the party's failure to explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his willful suppression of evidence relating thereto, if such be the case."].) However, in discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction-CALJIC No. 2.62-our high court recognized " '[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must ap

2019Code, § 413 ["In determining what inferences to *606 draw from the evidence or facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the party's failure to explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his willful suppression of evidence relating thereto, if such be the case."].) However, in discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction-CALJIC No. 2.62-our high court recognized " '[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must ap

2026“CALCRIM No. 361 rests on the logical inference that if a person charged with a crime is given the opportunity to explain or deny evidence against him or her but fails to do so, then that evidence may be entitled to added weight. [Citation.] The focus of the instruction, ‘as its language indicates, is not on the defendant’s credibility as a witness, but on the role of a testifying defendant’s failure to explain or deny incriminating evidence in how jurors “evaluat[e] that evidence,” i.e., the evidence the defendant has failed to explain or deny.’ [Citations.] However, in discussing a substanti

2025Standard of Review “[I]n discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction—CALJIC No. 2.62— our high court recognized that ‘ “[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference.” ’ ” (People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 606 , quoting People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 681 .) Our task, in determining whether it was error for the trial court to give CALCRIM No. 361, “is to ascertain if defendant … failed to

2025Standard of Review “[I]n discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction—CALJIC No. 2.62— our high court recognized that ‘ “[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference.” ’ ” (People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 606 , quoting People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 681 .) Our task, in determining whether it was error for the trial court to give CALCRIM No. 361, “is to ascertain if defendant … failed to

2019Code, § 413 ["In determining what inferences to *606 draw from the evidence or facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the party's failure to explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his willful suppression of evidence relating thereto, if such be the case."].) However, in discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction-CALJIC No. 2.62-our high court recognized " '[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must ap

2025(Chapman, at p. 24.) Under the standard articulated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson), which applies to errors of state law, reversal is not required unless it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result had the error not occurred.

2022(See People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116 , 1129– 1130 [An error in giving an instruction that correctly states a principle of law but has no application to the facts of the case is one of state law subject to the traditional People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , 836 test.].) Here, it is not reasonably probable the result would have been more favorable to defendant had the instruction been omitted.

2025Standard of Review “[I]n discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction—CALJIC No. 2.62— our high court recognized that ‘ “[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference.” ’ ” (People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 606 , quoting People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 681 .) Our task, in determining whether it was error for the trial court to give CALCRIM No. 361, “is to ascertain if defendant … failed to

2025Standard of Review “[I]n discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction—CALJIC No. 2.62— our high court recognized that ‘ “[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference.” ’ ” (People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 606 , quoting People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 681 .) Our task, in determining whether it was error for the trial court to give CALCRIM No. 361, “is to ascertain if defendant … failed to

2025Standard of Review “[I]n discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction—CALJIC No. 2.62— our high court recognized that ‘ “[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference.” ’ ” (People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 606 , quoting People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 681 .) Our task, in determining whether it was error for the trial court to give CALCRIM No. 361, “is to ascertain if defendant … failed to

2019Code, § 413 ["In determining what inferences to *606 draw from the evidence or facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the party's failure to explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his willful suppression of evidence relating thereto, if such be the case."].) However, in discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction-CALJIC No. 2.62-our high court recognized " '[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must ap