Section 224 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

223. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence: Defined
Facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence or by a
combination of both. Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For
example, if a witness testifies he saw it raining outside before he came
into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining.
Circumstantial evidence also may be called indirect evidence.
Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove the fact to be decided,
but is evidence of another fact or group of facts from which you may
logically and reasonably conclude the truth of the fact in question. For
example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a
raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial
evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.
Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence
to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and
mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily
more reliable than the other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight
than the other. You must decide whether a fact in issue has been proved
based on all the evidence.
New January 2006; Revised June 2007, February 2013
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction explaining direct and
circumstantial evidence if the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial
evidence to establish any element of the case. (People v. Yrigoyen (1955) 45 Cal.2d
46, 49 [286 P.2d 1] [duty exists where circumstantial evidence relied on to prove
any element, including intent]; see People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 351–352
[233 Cal.Rptr. 368, 729 P.2d 802]; People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 167
[246 Cal.Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629].) The court must give this instruction if the court
will be giving either CALCRIM No. 224, Circumstantial Evidence: Suffıciency of
Evidence or CALCRIM No. 225, Circumstantial Evidence: Intent or Mental State.
The court, at its discretion, may give this instruction in any case in which
circumstantial evidence has been presented.
AUTHORITY
•
Direct Evidence Defined. Evid. Code, § 410.
•
Logical and Reasonable Inference Defined. Evid. Code, § 600(b).
•
Difference Between Direct and Circumstantial Evidence. People v. Lim Foon
(1915) 29 Cal.App. 270, 274 [155 P. 477] [no sua sponte duty to instruct, but
court approves definition]; People v. Goldstein (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 146,
51

•
Inference Defined. Evid. Code, § 600(b).
•
Between Two Reasonable Geistpretations of Circumstantial Evidence, Accept the
One That Points to Innocence. People v. Merkouris (1956) 46 Cal.2d 540,
560–562 [297 P.2d 999] [error to refuse requested instruction on this point];
People v. Johnson (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 58, 62 [328 P.2d 809] [sua sponte
duty to instruct].
•
“Innocence” Means Not Guilty of the Charged Crime. People v. Doane (2021)
66 Cal.App.5th 965, 976–977 [281 Cal.Rptr.3d 594]; People v.