CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Presumptions & Burden of Proof
......Burden of Proof
.........Criminal Matters
............Effect of Inferences
8 Cards On This Topic:

CALJIC No. 2.06 instruction was not argumentative, did not permit jury to draw irrational inferences about D's mental state during the crime and did not direct the drawing of impermissible inferences.

CALJIC 2.03 did not inaccurately instruct on the inferences jury could properly draw from D's false statements.

Inference that D committed crime of attempted oral copulation insufficient to support conviction.

Although D's arguments rejected here, Court disagreed with use of CALCRIM No. 362 when basis for an inference of guilt is false or misleading statements in D's trial testimony, rather than statements made prior to trial.

Based on evidence, no rational connection between the proved fact (test showing BAC of 0.08% or more w/in 3 hrs of driving) and the inferred fact (BAC of 0.08% or more at time of driving) sufficient to justify CALJIC 12.61.1.

That D may have acted in explosion of violence did not raise reasonable inference his acts were spontaneous and that he did not act with specific intent to cause extreme pain and suffering [torture].

Error to instruct that jury could draw unfavorable inferences from D's failure to explain or deny child V's motive in making allegations where there was nothing in record or cross-exam of D concerning V's motivations.

Chain of inference jury instruction re prior offenses violates due process requirement that DA prove each element of charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt; error may be harmless.