purpose of the cautionary instruction in California

2017This court has explained that the purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining whether the defendant actually made the statement attributed to him. ( People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210 , 1268, 278 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 805 P.2d 899 ; **539 People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , 456, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 .) We can conclude from the verdict of guilt on the first degree murder charge that the jury believed defendant had made the out-of-court statements attributed to him, including those that supported his heat of passion defense.

2017This court has explained that the purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining whether the defendant actually made the statement attributed to him. ( People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210 , 1268, 278 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 805 P.2d 899 ; **539 People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , 456, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 .) We can conclude from the verdict of guilt on the first degree murder charge that the jury believed defendant had made the out-of-court statements attributed to him, including those that supported his heat of passion defense.

2015If other evidence shows that the charged crime [or a lesser included offense] was committed, the identity of the person who committed it [and the degree of the crime] may be proved by the defendant’s statement[s] alone. [¶] You may not convict the defendant unless the People have proved (his/her) guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 20 “ ‘The purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining if the statement was in fact made.’ [Citation.] This purpose would apply to any oral statement of the defendant, whether made before, during, or after the crime.” (People v. Carpenter

2015If other evidence shows that the charged crime [or a lesser included offense] was committed, the identity of the person who committed it [and the degree of the crime] may be proved by the defendant’s statement[s] alone. [¶] You may not convict the defendant unless the People have proved (his/her) guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 20 “ ‘The purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining if the statement was in fact made.’ [Citation.] This purpose would apply to any oral statement of the defendant, whether made before, during, or after the crime.” (People v. Carpenter

2017This court has explained that the purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining whether the defendant actually made the statement attributed to him. ( People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210 , 1268, 278 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 805 P.2d 899 ; **539 People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , 456, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 .) We can conclude from the verdict of guilt on the first degree murder charge that the jury believed defendant had made the out-of-court statements attributed to him, including those that supported his heat of passion defense.

2017This court has explained that the purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining whether the defendant actually made the statement attributed to him. ( People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210 , 1268, 278 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 805 P.2d 899 ; **539 People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , 456, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 .) We can conclude from the verdict of guilt on the first degree murder charge that the jury believed defendant had made the out-of-court statements attributed to him, including those that supported his heat of passion defense.

2014(People v. Bemis (1949) 33 Cal.2d 395, 399 [“No other class of testimony affords such temptations or opportunities for unscrupulous witnesses to torture the facts or commit open perjury . . . .”].) Nor can it 36 “be assumed that the jury will have in mind the considerations that may affect the weight or credibility of . . . the evidence of the oral admissions of a party.” (Id. at p. 400.) Here, the purpose of the cautionary instruction—to view evidence of defendant’s oral statements with caution—was essentially served by two other instructions.

1972(See People v. Howk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 687, 706-707 [ 16 Cal. Rptr. 370 , 365 P.2d 426 ]; People v. Holbrook, supra, 45 Cal.2d 228, 234 .) (17) The purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining if the statement was in fact made. ( People v. Bemis (1949) 33 Cal.2d 395, 400 [ 202 P.2d 82 ].) (18) We find no reasonable probability that the jury would find that the statements either were not made or were not reported accurately.

1995We evaluate a claim of prejudicial failure to give such a cautionary instruction under the Watson standard. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) As we formulated the test in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [ 99 Cal. Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ], where we held that the trial court must give such an instruction sua sponte, "[t]he omission [i.e., of an oral admissions cautionary instruction] does not constitute reversible error if upon a reweighing of the evidence it does not appear reasonably *922 probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reac

1995We evaluate a claim of prejudicial failure to give such a cautionary instruction under the Watson standard. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) As we formulated the test in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [ 99 Cal. Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ], where we held that the trial court must give such an instruction sua sponte, "[t]he omission [i.e., of an oral admissions cautionary instruction] does not constitute reversible error if upon a reweighing of the evidence it does not appear reasonably *922 probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reac

1972(See People v. Howk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 687, 706-707 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 370 , 365 P.2d 426 ]; People v. Holbrook, supra, 45 Cal.2d 228, 234 .) The purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining if the statement was in fact made.

1972(See People v. Howk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 687, 706-707 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 370 , 365 P.2d 426 ]; People v. Holbrook, supra, 45 Cal.2d 228, 234 .) The purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining if the statement was in fact made.

2015(People v. Dickey (2005) 35 Cal.4th 884, 905 (Dickey).) Since witnesses may inaccurately report a defendant’s statements, the purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining if the statement was in fact made.

2014(People v. Dickey (2005) 35 Cal.4th 884, 905 .) Because witnesses may inaccurately report a defendant's statements, the purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining if the statement was in fact made.

2014(People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016 [“‘“The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.”’”].) First, CALCRIM No. 301 (Single Witness’s Testimony) instructed the jury to “carefully review all the evidence” before concluding the testimony of one witness proved a fact.

2013Defense counsel indicated this was correct, but asked that the defense objection be noted for the record. *1197 “ ‘When evidence is admitted estabhshing that the defendant made oral admissions, the trial court ordinarily has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that such evidence must be viewed with caution. [Citation.] We have explained, however, that “the purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining if the statement was in fact made. [Citation.]” [Citation.] Accordingly, we also have held that this cautionary instruction should not be given if the oral admissi

2013Defense counsel indicated this was correct, but asked that the defense objection be noted for the record. *1197 “ ‘When evidence is admitted estabhshing that the defendant made oral admissions, the trial court ordinarily has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that such evidence must be viewed with caution. [Citation.] We have explained, however, that “the purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining if the statement was in fact made. [Citation.]” [Citation.] Accordingly, we also have held that this cautionary instruction should not be given if the oral admissi

2010Further, any error in failing to instruct the jury to view defendant’s statements with caution was harmless. “ ‘The purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining if the statement was in fact made.’ ” (People v. Livaditis, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 784.) In this case, the parties did not dispute that defendant made statements about the crime.

2002When evidence is admitted establishing that the defendant made oral admission, *486 the trial court ordinarily has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that such evidence must be viewed with caution. ( People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 455 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 .) We have explained, however, that "the purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining if the statement was in fact made. [Citation.]" ( Id. at p. 456, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 .) Accordingly, we also have held that this cautionary instruction should not be given if the oral admission wa

2002When evidence is admitted establishing that the defendant made oral admission, *486 the trial court ordinarily has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that such evidence must be viewed with caution. ( People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 455 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 .) We have explained, however, that "the purpose of the cautionary instruction is to assist the jury in determining if the statement was in fact made. [Citation.]" ( Id. at p. 456, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 .) Accordingly, we also have held that this cautionary instruction should not be given if the oral admission wa

1995We evaluate a claim of prejudicial failure to give such a cautionary instruction under the Watson standard. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) As we formulated the test in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [ 99 Cal. Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ], where we held that the trial court must give such an instruction sua sponte, "[t]he omission [i.e., of an oral admissions cautionary instruction] does not constitute reversible error if upon a reweighing of the evidence it does not appear reasonably *922 probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reac

1995We evaluate a claim of prejudicial failure to give such a cautionary instruction under the Watson standard. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) As we formulated the test in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [ 99 Cal. Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ], where we held that the trial court must give such an instruction sua sponte, "[t]he omission [i.e., of an oral admissions cautionary instruction] does not constitute reversible error if upon a reweighing of the evidence it does not appear reasonably *922 probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reac

1995We evaluate a claim of prejudicial failure to give such a cautionary instruction under the Watson standard. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) As we formulated the test in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [ 99 Cal. Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ], where we held that the trial court must give such an instruction sua sponte, "[t]he omission [i.e., of an oral admissions cautionary instruction] does not constitute reversible error if upon a reweighing of the evidence it does not appear reasonably *922 probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reac

1995We evaluate a claim of prejudicial failure to give such a cautionary instruction under the Watson standard. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) As we formulated the test in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [ 99 Cal. Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ], where we held that the trial court must give such an instruction sua sponte, "[t]he omission [i.e., of an oral admissions cautionary instruction] does not constitute reversible error if upon a reweighing of the evidence it does not appear reasonably *922 probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reac

1991Telling the jury to view his words with caution might have been more damaging to the defense than to the prosecution. (44) (See fn. 15.) There is no reasonable *844 possibility that the failure to give the cautionary instruction affected the penalty verdict. ( People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448-449 [ 250 Cal. Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].) [15] g.

1991Telling the jury to view his words with caution might have been more damaging to the defense than to the prosecution. (44) (See fn. 15.) There is no reasonable *844 possibility that the failure to give the cautionary instruction affected the penalty verdict. ( People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448-449 [ 250 Cal. Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].) [15] g.