Section 220 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

respondents in commitment extension hearings the rights constitutionally enjoyed by
criminal defendants”] and In re Luis C. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1402–1403
[11 Cal.Rptr.3d 429] [same for Welfare and Institutions Code section 1801.5
juvenile proceedings].)
AUTHORITY
•
Instructional Requirements. People v. Beeson (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1401
[122 Cal.Rptr.2d 384]; Pen. Code, § 1026.5(b)(7); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1801.5.
Related Instructions
CALCRIM No. 220, Reasonable Doubt.
CALCRIM No. 3453, Extension of Commitment.
CALCRIM No. 3454, Commitment as Sexually Violent Predator.
CALCRIM No. 3454A, Hearing to Determine Current Status Under Sexually
Violent Predator Act.
CALCRIM No. 3456, Initial Commitment of Mentally Disordered Offender As
Condition of Parole.
CALCRIM No. 3457, Extension of Commitment as Mentally Disordered Offender.
CALCRIM No. 3458, Extension of Commitment to Division of Juvenile Facilities.
SECONDARY SOURCES
3 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Punishment, § 774.
5 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 104, Parole,
§ 104.06 (Matthew Bender).
CALCRIM No. 219
POST-TRIAL: INTRODUCTORY
44

•
This Instruction Does Not Suggest That Bias Against Defendant Is Permissible.
People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1185–1186 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].
•
Cited With Approval. People v. Aranda (2012) 55 Cal.4th 342, 353 [145
Cal.Rptr.3d 855].
COMMENTARY
This instruction is based directly on Penal Code section 1096. The primary changes
are a reordering of concepts and a definition of reasonable doubt stated in the
affirmative rather than in the negative. The instruction also refers to the jury’s duty
to impartially compare and consider all the evidence. (See Victor v. Nebraska (1994)
511 U.S. 1, 16–17 [114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583].) The appellate courts have
urged the trial courts to exercise caution in modifying the language of section 1096
to avoid error in defining reasonable doubt. (See People v. Freeman (1994) 8
Cal.4th 450, 503–504 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249]; People v. Garcia (1975)
54 Cal.App.3d 61, 63 [126 Cal.Rptr. 275].) The instruction includes all the concepts
contained in section 1096 and substantially tracks the statutory language. For an
alternate view of instructing on reasonable doubt, see Committee on Standard Jury
Instructions—Criminal, Minority Report to CALJIC “Reasonable Doubt” Report, in
Alternative Definitions of Reasonable Doubt: A Report to the California Legislature
(May 22, 1987; repr., San Francisco: Daily Journal, 1987) pp. 51–53.
RELATED ISSUES
Pinpoint Instruction on Reasonable Doubt
A defendant is entitled, on request, to a nonargumentative instruction that directs
attention to the defense’s theory of the case and relates it to the state’s burden of
proof. (People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180, 190 [84 Cal.Rptr. 711, 465 P.2d 847]
[error to deny requested instruction relating defense evidence to the element of
premeditation and deliberation].)