1 / 33

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.). Some definitions:Evid. Code ? 140 ? evidence (testimony, writings, material objects presented to the senses to prove or disprove)Evid. Code ? 410 ? ?direct evidence" means evidence that directly proves a fact without inference or presumption, and whi

corby
Download Presentation

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

    2. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) Some definitions: Evid. Code § 140 – evidence (testimony, writings, material objects presented to the senses to prove or disprove) Evid. Code § 410 – “direct evidence” means evidence that directly proves a fact without inference or presumption, and which in itself, if true, conclusively establishes that fact. Evid. Code § 600(b) – an inference is a deduction of fact that may be logically and reasonably drawn from another fact or group of facts found

    3. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALJIC 2.00 -- Evidence consists of testimony of witnesses, writings, material objects, or anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact.   Evidence is either direct or circumstantial.   Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact.  It is evidence which by itself, if found to be true, establishes that fact.  

    4. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALJIC 2.00 --   Circumstantial evidence is evidence that, if found to be true, proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn.   An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.  

    5. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALJIC 2.00 --   It is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence.  They may be proved also by circumstantial evidence or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence.  Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof.  Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.

    6. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALCRIM 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.

    7. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALCRIM 223. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Defined 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 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.

    8. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALCRIM 223. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Defined 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.

    9. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) Other relevant ideas: Evid. Code § 702 – personal knowledge requirement FRE 602 – personal knowledge requirement Evid. Code § 411 – the direct evidence of one witness, who is entitled to full credit, is sufficient

    10. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALJIC 2.01 Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence—Generally However, a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only (1) consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but (2) cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.

    11. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALJIC 2.01 Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence—Generally Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    12. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALJIC 2.01 Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence—Generally Also, if the circumstantial evidence [as to any particular count] permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to [his] [her] innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence, and reject that interpretation that points to [his] [her] guilt.

    13. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALJIC 2.01 Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence—Generally If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.

    14. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALCRIM 224 Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact necessary to find the defendant guilty has been proved, you must be convinced that the People have proved each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

    15. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALCRIM 224 Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence. However, when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable.

    16. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALJIC 2.01 USE NOTE This or a similar instruction must be given by the court on its own motion where the case of the people rests substantially or entirely on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Yrigoyen, 45 Cal.2d 46, 49, 286 P.2d 1, 3 (1955); People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164, 175, 163 P.2d 8, 15 (1945).) This instruction is unnecessary where the prosecution does not substantially rely on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Wiley, 18 Cal.3d 162, 175, 133 Cal.Rptr. 135, 554 P.2d 881, 888 (1976). Accord, People v. Wright, 52 Cal.3d 367, 406, 276 Cal.Rptr. 731, 802 P.2d 221 (1990).) Where the only circumstantial evidence is an extrajudicial admission, this instruction is not only unnecessary but may be misleading and should not be given. (People v. Gould, 54 Cal.2d 621, 630, 7 Cal.Rptr. 273, 277, 354 P.2d 865, 869 (1960).)

    17. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALJIC 2.01 USE NOTE CALJIC 2.01 and CALJIC 2.02 should never be given together. This is because CALJIC 2.01 is inclusive of all issues, including mental state and/or specific intent, whereas CALJIC 2.02 is limited to just mental state and/or specific intent. Therefore, they are alternative instructions. if the only circumstantial evidence relates to specific intent or mental state, CALJIC 2.02 should be given. If the circumstantial evidence relates to other matters, or relates to other matters as well as specific intent or mental state, CALJIC 2.01 should be given and not CALJIC 2.02. (See People v. Honig, 48 Cal.App.4th 289, 340–341, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 555 (3d Dist.1996); People v. Marshall, 13 Cal.4th 799, 849, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347, 919 P.2d 1280 (1996).)

    18. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) COMMENT 3 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Presentation at Trial, §§ 142–143; 1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, § 652. CALJIC 2.01 should only be given when circumstantial evidence is “substantially relied upon for proof of guilt.” The instruction should not be given when the problem of inferring guilt from a pattern of incriminating circumstances is not present. (People v. Williams, 162 Cal.App.3d 869, 874, 876, 208 Cal.Rptr. 790, 793, 794 (5th Dist.1984). Accord, People v. Wright, 52 Cal.3d 367, 406, 276 Cal.Rptr. 731, 802 P.2d 221 (1990).)

    19. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALCRIM 224 BENCH NOTES Instructional Duty The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on how to evaluate 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].)

    20. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) CALCRIM 224 BENCH NOTES Instructional Duty There is no sua sponte duty to give this instruction when the circumstantial evidence is incidental to and corroborative of direct evidence. (People v. Malbrough (1961) 55 Cal.2d 249, 250–251 [10 Cal.Rptr. 632, 359 P.2d 30]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 831 [299 P.2d 243]; People v. Shea (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1270–1271 [46 Cal.Rptr.2d 388].) This is so even when the corroborative circumstantial evidence is essential to the prosecution's case, e.g., when corroboration of an accomplice's testimony is required under Penal Code section 1111. (People v. Williams (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 869, 874 [208 Cal.Rptr. 790].) If intent is the only element proved by circumstantial evidence, do not give this instruction. Give CALCRIM No. 225, Circumstantial Evidence: Intent or Mental State. (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 849 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347, 919 P.2d 1280].)

    21. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) Opinion Evidence Lay opinion – e.g. the car was red; it was late; he was sleepy …. Expert opinion – e.g. DNA test results; psych evaluation; accident reconstruction

    22. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) Hearsay Musa Hussein statement to Police: Heard people yelling “they are putting him in the trunk” Heard gunshots Description of 3 men Description of actions of 3 men

    23. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) Hearsay White car/blue car – “Oh my goodness, the blue car just ran the red light!” * * * “Doctor, my back hurts.” “Doctor, my back has been hurting since a car hit me last month.”

    24. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) Character Evidence Violence – Victim had character for violence – specific instances or reputation or opinion Inference: victim acted violently on this occasion cf defendant’s testimony that he felt threatened by victim b/c of reputation Is this evidence direct or circumstantial? What is the jury being asked to find? On what reasoning?

    25. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) Character evidence Sexual assault offenses: When a defendant seeks to introduce prior promiscuous conduct of victim with others, what is purpose? Direct or circumstantial? When a defendant seeks to introduce victim’s prior sexual conduct with him, what is purpose? Direct or circumstantial?

    26. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) Character Impeachment of witness with a prior felony Evidence of prior similar acts What is purpose of this evidence? Is it direct or circumstantial? What are we asking jury to do with this evidence?

    27. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) Subsequent remedial measures: - fixed problem after accident - Inference: ? Habit: - Decedent always came to a full stop at the stop sign at the corner by his house - Inference: ?

    28. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) People v. Cooper, Cross and Kingdom Analyze these facts: what is direct and what is circumstantial – what are inferences? Aug. 16, 1995, decomposed body of William Highsmith is discovered in remote wooded area: Lower half of T-shirt is cut away Cut away part of T-shirt is used as gag on victim Pants/underwear pulled down to thighs Scissors near body Contact gunshot wound to face Advanced decomposition shows time of death to be very near when last seen on Aug. 3, 1995

    29. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) People v. Cooper, Cross and Kingdom Analyze these facts: what is direct and what is circumstantial – what are inferences? Witnesses Hodges, Walton and Love see 3 D’s just before kidnapping: All three see 3 D’s in gloves and black puffy jackets with hoods on a hot summer afternoon Love saw a revolver sticking out of 1 D’s shirt Love saw all 3 D’s pull out guns to while confronting victim

    30. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) People v. Cooper, Cross and Kingdom Analyze these facts: what is direct and what is circumstantial – what are inferences? Witness Archambeau makes observations on the San Mateo Bridge at 7pm: A red Corvette stopped at high point of bridge A man fitting same general description of Cooper is standing outside of Corvette and throwing a folded over grocery bag into the Bay The Corvette’s license plate number is the same as that of the red Corvette that K.K. Parker used to drive the victim to the kidnap scene

    31. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) People v. Cooper, Cross and Kingdom Analyze these facts: what is direct and what is circumstantial – what are inferences? At 9pm, a worker at Bottles Liquor Store sees the same red Corvette parked outside of the store blocking a parking space; the car is running with no one inside and he sees a man in a plaid shirt walking away from the car. At 11pm the police stop a car with Cooper in the passenger seat. He is wearing a similar plaid shirt and gloves with GSR are found where he was sitting. A black jacket with GSR was found in the rear seat behind where he was sitting.

    32. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) People v. Cooper, Cross and Kingdom Analyze these facts: what is direct and what is circumstantial – what are inferences? Assume that Kingdom gives a confession statement in which he says: Only Cooper had a gun Cooper held the gun at all times Cooper cut the victim’s T-shirt and tied the gag on the victim Cooper tortured the victim by stabbing him with scissors

    33. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (cont.) People v. Cooper, Cross and Kingdom Analyze these facts: what is direct and what is circumstantial – what are inferences? Assume Kingdom gives a confession statement in which he says Cooper shot the victim in the face: A 10mm shell is recovered from victim’s head Several 9mm casings are recovered from kidnap scene

More Related