Section 303 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

304. Multiple Defendants: Limited Admissibility of Evidence
I instructed you during the trial that certain evidence was admitted only
against [a] certain defendant[s]. You must not consider that evidence
against any other defendant.
New January 2006
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has no sua sponte duty to give an instruction limiting evidence to one
defendant; however, it must be given on request. (Evid. Code, § 355; People v.
Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 83 [241 Cal.Rptr. 594, 744 P.2d 1127], disapproved
of on other grounds in People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907 [269 Cal.Rptr. 269,
790 P.2d 676].)
AUTHORITY
•
Instructional Requirements. Evid. Code, § 355.
RELATED ISSUES
See the Related Issues section to CALCRIM No. 303, Limited Purpose Evidence in
General.
SECONDARY SOURCES
1 Witkin, California Evidence (5th ed. 2012) Circumstantial Evidence, §§ 32, 33, 35.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 83,
Evidence, § 83.04[3] (Matthew Bender).
80

305. Multiple Defendants: Limited Admissibility of Defendant’s
Statement
You have heard evidence that defendant
<insert defendant’s
name> made a statement (out of court/before trial). You may consider
that evidence only against (him/her), not against any other defendant.
New January 2006
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has no sua sponte duty to give an instruction on defendant’s statements;
however, it must be given on request. (Evid. Code, § 355; People v. Simms (1970)
10 Cal.App.3d 299, 311 [89 Cal.Rptr. 1].)
If the defendant made the statement out of court, give that phrase in the
parenthetical. If the statement was made in a previous proceeding, give the phrase
“before trial.” (See People v. Perry (1972) 7 Cal.3d 756, 787–788 [103 Cal.Rptr.
161, 499 P.2d 129].)
AUTHORITY
•
Instructional Requirements. Evid. Code, § 355.
RELATED ISSUES
See the Related Issues section to CALCRIM No. 303, Limited Purpose Evidence in
General.
SECONDARY SOURCES
1 Witkin, California Evidence (5th ed. 2012) Circumstantial Evidence, §§ 32, 33, 35.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,
Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.02[2][b] (Matthew Bender).
81

In People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 892, 906–908 [16 Cal.Rptr.3d 447, 94 P.3d
574], the Supreme Court held that testimony from an expert in battered women’s
syndrome could be admitted under Evidence Code section 801 even though there
was no evidence of prior incidents of violence between the defendant and the
alleged victim. The court held that the expert could testify generally about the
“cycle of violence” and the frequency of recantation by victims of domestic abuse,
without testifying specifically about “battered women’s syndrome.” (Ibid.) It is
unclear if the court is required to give a cautionary admonition sua sponte when
such evidence is admitted.
Related Instructions
If this instruction is given, also give CALCRIM No. 303, Limited Purpose Evidence
in General, and CALCRIM No. 332, Expe