11 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2022 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Wardgreen2 sentences2022(Id. at pp. 461-462; see also People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 213 (Ward) [finding no sua sponte duty to modify CALJIC No. 2.92 and no due process violation].) Here, like the defendant in Sánchez, defendant forfeited any challenge to the trial court’s eyewitness identification instruction by failing to object to the instruction or request its modification. 2021(Id. at pp. 461-462; see also People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 213 (Ward) [finding no sua sponte duty to modify CALJIC No. 2.92 and no due process violation].) Here, like the defendant in Sánchez, defendant forfeited any challenge to the trial court’s eyewitness identification instruction by failing to object to the instruction or request 8 The entirety of the trial court’s eyewitness identification instruction stated: “You have heard eyewitness testimony identifying the defendant. | 3 | 5 |
People v. Lemckegreen2 sentences2022(See Sánchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 461-462; see also Ward, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 213 .) Moreover, in People v. Lemcke (2021) 11 Cal.5th 644, 646 (Lemcke), the California Supreme Court recently rejected the defendant’s due process challenge to CALCRIM No. 315.10 The court found “nothing in CALCRIM No. 315’s instruction on witness certainty that operates to ‘lower the prosecution’s burden of proof.’ ” (Lemke, supra, at p. 657.) Nor did the instruction violate the defendant’s due process rights “by denying him ‘a “meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense” ’ ” or by rendering the 2022(Id. at p. 658.) As to Lemcke’s claim that he was denied a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, the court observed that Lemcke “had the opportunity to cross-examine [the eyewitness] and the investigating officers regarding her identifications and the procedures used during the photographic lineups,” and had “elicited numerous inconsistencies in other aspects of [her] recollection.” (Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 660 .) The court concluded that the inclusion of the certainty factor in the eyewitness- identification instruction had not rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2014In any event, the California Supreme Court has consistently applied the standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 , which is applicable to state law error, to errors involving the eyewitness identification instruction in general (Wright, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1144 ) and inclusion of the certainty factor in particular (People v. Ward, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 214 ). 2014On more than one occasion, our Supreme Court has rejected substantially the same argument that Weese makes here in the context of the predecessor instruction to CALCRIM No. 315, which stated that the jury should consider, among other factors, "[t]he extent to which the witness was either certain or uncertain of the identification." (CALJIC No. 2.92.) First, in People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1141 (Wright), our Supreme Court generally approved all of the various eyewitness identification factors set forth in CALJIC No. 2.92, including certainty of identification, as long as they are set | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sánchez
green
2 sentences2022(See People v. Sánchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411 , 461–462 [defendant forfeited challenge by not requesting modification of analogous instruction, CALJIC No. 2.92].) But in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lemcke raising potential constitutional issues with the eyewitness identification instruction (depending on the record), we review the merits of Jones’s contention the instruction violated his constitutional rights on the record before us. 2021Among 15 considerations, the court instructed jurors that in evaluating [Omar’s] identification testimony, jurors were to consider “[h]ow certain was the witness when he or she made an identification?” In People v. Sánchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411 (Sánchez), our Supreme Court held there was no error in the portion of the eyewitness identification instruction advising the jury it may consider an eyewitness’s level of certainty. | 3 | 2021–2022 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2015IV There Was No Error In The Court’s Standard Instruction Regarding Eyewitness Identification, CALCRIM No. 315 Defendant contends the court’s instruction regarding eyewitness identification (CALCRIM No. 315) that told the jury to consider, among other things, “How certain was the witness when he or she made an identification?” deprived him of due process of law based on recent scientific research regarding the unreliability of eyewitness identification.1 We reject defendant’s argument based on California Supreme Court precedent. 1 The full version of CALCRIM No. 315 read to the jury reads as f 2014Next, in People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1231-1232 , our Supreme Court rejected the defendant's argument that the portion of CALJIC No. 2.92 referring to 4 When a defendant fails to object to an instruction in the trial court, an appellate challenge to the instruction is cognizable only if defendant's substantial rights are implicated by the purportedly erroneous instruction. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
People v. Watson
green
1 sentence2014In any event, the California Supreme Court has consistently applied the standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 , which is applicable to state law error, to errors involving the eyewitness identification instruction in general (Wright, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1144 ) and inclusion of the certainty factor in particular (People v. Ward, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 214 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Avena
green
1 sentence2013(In re Avena, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 721 .) As for the two challenged instructions, the eyewitness identification instruction with the substituted word “suspect” arguably highlighted, too, the defense-favorable witness identification evidence. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.