Section 226 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

•
Witness Who Lies. People v. Murillo (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1107 [55
Cal.Rptr.2d 21].
•
Proof of Character For Truthfulness From Evidence of Lack of Discussion.
People v. Jimenez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 726, 732 [201 Cal.Rptr.3d 76]; People
v. Adams (1902) 137 Cal. 580, 582 [70 P. 662].
•
This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174,
1187–1188 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].
SECONDARY SOURCES
5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Criminal Trial, § 725.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,
Submission to Jury and Verdict, §§ 85.02[1A][b], [2][b], [c], 85.03[2][b] (Matthew
Bender).
227–239.
Reserved for Future Use
CALCRIM No. 226
POST-TRIAL: INTRODUCTORY
60

No. 222, Evidence, or CALCRIM No. 226, Witnesses.
Do not give CALCRIM No. 224, Circumstantial Evidence: Suffıciency of Evidence,
or CALCRIM No. 225, Circumstantial Evidence: Intent or Mental State. These
instructions have “no application when the standard of proof is preponderance of the
evidence.” (People v. Johnwell (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1274 [18 Cal.Rptr.3d
286].)
Do not give this instruction in conjunction with proceedings under Penal Code
sections 2970 and 2972. (People v. Noble (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 184, 190 [121
Cal.Rptr.2d 918].)
AUTHORITY
•
Instructional Requirements. Pen. Code, § 1026.2.
•
Unsupervised Self-Medication. People v. Williams (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1476,
1481–1482 [244 Cal.Rptr. 429].
•
Presumption of Continuing Insanity. In re Franklin (1972) 7 Cal.3d 126, 141
[101 Cal.Rptr. 553, 496 P.2d 465] [interpreting precursor statute].
•
Three-Fourths Verdict and Defendant’s Burden of Proof. In re Franklin (1972) 7
Cal.3d 126, 149 [101 Cal.Rptr. 553, 496 P.2d 465]; People v. Mapp (1983) 150
Cal.App.3d 346, 351 [198 Cal.Rptr. 177].
RELATED ISSUES
Court May Order a Directed Verdict
The court may order a directed verdict when insufficiency of the evidence warrants
it. (People v. Mapp (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 346, 351 [198 Cal.Rptr. 177].)
Both Parties Have Right to Jury Trial on Issue of Restoration of Sanity
Even if the defendant waives the right to a jury on the issue of restoration of sanity,
the prosecution may still assert its right to a jury. (People v. Superior Court
(Almond) (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 607, 612 [268 Cal.Rptr. 375].)
No Right to Jury Trial on First-Stage Hearing on Outpatient Treatment
Even though success at the first-stage hearing is a necessary step on the way to
eventual release, equal protection does not require that a criminal defendant who has
been committed has a right to a jury at such a hearing. (People v. Tilbury (1991) 54
Cal.3d 56, 67 [284 Cal.Rptr. 288, 813 P.2d 1318].)
SECONDARY SOURCES
5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Criminal Trial,
§§ 803–813.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 86, Insanity
Trial, § 86.10[4], [7] (Matthew Bender).
CALCRIM No. 3452
DEFENSES AND INSANITY
1030