California Court of Appeal

A trial court does not violate a defendant's rights to due process and a fair trial by preinstructing the jury on the definitions of direct and circumstantial evidence under CALCRIM No. 223, without also preinstructing on the method of assessing the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence under CALCRIM No. 224, where those instructions are fully and correctly given along with the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's burden of proof at the close of evidence and before deliberations.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/05/2008
• Published 11/05/2008

Judges

• HUFFMAN, Acting P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Darrel J. Vandeveld, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant., Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf and Sharon L. Rhodes, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.