Jury Trial Trial Process Overview & California Jury Instructions

The United State Constitution grants every criminal defendant the right to jury trial in both misdemeanor and felony cases. California law requires an impartial jury selected from a representative cross-section of residents of the county in which the crime was allegedly committed. The following constitutional rights are applicable during criminal trials: the right to counsel; the right to a public trial; the right to trial by jury; the right to a fair and impartial trial; the right to control witnesses in court; the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses; and the privilege against self-incrimination. A violation of any of these rights may result in a reversal of the conviction upon appeal. An experienced and aggressive Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney of Wallin & Klarich will ensure that any and all of the defendant’s state and federal rights are honored.

Bench Trial

Opposing parties to a felony or misdemeanor proceeding may waive the right to jury trial and permit a bench trial to ensue. A bench trial grants the judge the power to decide the verdict, as opposed to a traditional jury. The defendant must personally waive his/he right to jury trial, however his/her waiver alone will not suffice. The prosecutor must also waive the right to trial by jury.

In most cases, jury trials are preferred, especially from the perspective of the defense. However, in some cases, a bench trial is preferable. The Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyers of Wallin & Klarich are adept to make such decisions based on the facts of the particular case.

The right to a jury trial does not attach to infractions. One accused of an infraction undergoes a trial before a judge. In infraction cases, traditional trial procedures generally apply, except that the judge examines the evidence and decides the verdict. The judge sets the punishment immediately after the verdict is read.

Pretrial Motions: Motions in Limine

Pretrial motions, or motions in limine, comprise the first stage of trial. Made before trial begins, pretrial motions are mechanisms through which each party asks the court to decide whether particular evidence will be admissible at trial. Most commonly, pretrial motions are made to exclude evidence that a particular party believes to be prejudicial. This may include a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the defendant’s previous criminal charges.

Jury Selection

During jury selection, the prosecution and defense will engage in voir dire, a direct examination of prospective jurors. Some jurors are excused “for cause,” and others are excused at the discretion of the attorneys (“peremptory challenges”). In the end, twelve impartial jurors are selected.

Opening Statements

After jury selection is complete, both parties give opening statements in which they present an overview of what is to come in the case. The opening statements will preview the evidence to expect during trial, including physical evidence and witness testimony. In some cases, the defense can reserve opening statements until after the prosecution has rested. The Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorneys at Wallin & Klarich are adept in making these tactical choices.

Trial Testimony

As witnesses from both the defense and prosecution testify, each side engages in examination and cross-examination of the respective testimony. This portion spans anywhere between several days and several weeks.

Closing Argument

When trial testimony has concluded, both parties give closing statements in which they review the evidence presented to the jury.

Jury Instructions

After closing arguments are completed by the lawyers, the judge will read to the jury the applicable criminal jury instructions that relate to the case. Please find below the jury instructions that will likely be read by the jury. In addition, you can read how the courts in California have interpreted these required jury instructions. It is essential that your lawyer is familiar with the jury instructions that are appropriate in your case.

Jury Deliberations

After closing arguments, jury deliberations begin. During this time, the jury may ask the judge for clarification about specific legal or factual issues and may request a reexamination of the evidence. The court reporter may read back testimony from prior witnesses to allow the jurors to reexamine.

The Verdict

The verdict may come in three forms: guilty, not guilty or deadlocked. In California, the jury verdict in criminal cases must be unanimous. If the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the jury is deemed “hung”. If the jury was provided adequate time to deliberate and was unable to reach a verdict, a retrial may take place at the discretion of the prosecutor. The defense may request dismissal to avoid retrial.

Contact Wallin & Klarich Today

Contact the experienced jury trial attorneys at Wallin & Klarich today

If you or your loved ones are facing criminal charges, you will need an experienced and aggressive California Criminal Defense Lawyer to structure and implement your most effective defense. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 40 years of experience defending individuals in criminal cases. Please contact us at (877) 4-NO-JAIL or (877)466-5245 or submit the format the top of this page for more information.

General Jury Instructions Given In A Criminal Case

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 100: Trial Process (Before or After Voir Dire).

[Jury service is very important and I would like to welcome you and thank you for your service.] Before we begin, I am going to describe for you how the trial will be conducted, and explain what you and the lawyers and I will be doing. When I refer to “the People,” I mean the attorney[s] from the (district attorney’s office/city attorney’s office/office of the attorney general) who (is/are) trying this case on behalf of the People of the State of California. When I refer to defense counsel, I mean the attorney[s] who (is/are) representing the defendant[s], <insert name[s] of defendant[s]>.

[The first step in this trial is jury selection.

During jury selection, the attorneys and I will ask you questions. These questions are not meant to embarrass you, but rather to determine whether you would be suitable to sit as a juror in this case.]

The trial will (then/now) proceed as follows: The People may present an opening statement. The defense is not required to present an opening statement, but if it chooses to do so, it may give it either after the People’s opening statement or at the beginning of the defense case. The purpose of an opening statement is to give you an overview of what the attorneys expect the evidence will show.

Next, the People will offer their evidence. Evidence usually includes witness testimony and exhibits. After the People present their evidence, the defense may also present evidence but is not required to do so. Because (he/she/they) (is/are) presumed innocent, the defendant[s] (does/do) not have to prove that (he/she/they) (is/are) not guilty.

After you have heard all the evidence and [before] the attorneys (give/have given) their final arguments, I will instruct you on the law that applies to the case.

After you have heard the arguments and instructions, you will go to the jury room to deliberate.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

There is no sua sponte duty to give an instruction outlining how the trial will proceed. This instruction has been provided for the convenience of the trial judge who may wish to explain the trial process to jurors. See California Rules of Court, Rule 2.1035.

The court may give the optional bracketed language if using this instruction before jury selection begins.

AUTHORITY

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1179–1181 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 101: Cautionary Admonitions: Jury Conduct (Before, During, or After Jury Is Selected).

Our system of justice requires that trials be conducted in open court with the parties presenting evidence and the judge deciding the law that applies to the case. It is unfair to the parties if you receive additional information from any other source because that information may be unreliable or irrelevant and the parties will not have had the opportunity to examine and respond to it. Your verdict must be based only on the evidence presented during trial in this court and the law as I provide it to you.

During the trial, do not talk about the case or about any of the people or any subject involved in the case with anyone, not even your family, friends, spiritual advisers, or therapists. Do not share information about the case in writing, by email, by telephone, on the Internet, or by any other means of communication. You must not talk about these things with other jurors either, until you begin deliberating.

As jurors, you may discuss the case together only after all of the evidence has been presented, the attorneys have completed their arguments, and I have instructed you on the law. After I tell you to begin your deliberations, you may discuss the case only in the jury room, and only when all jurors are present.

You must not allow anything that happens outside of the courtroom to affect your decision [unless I tell you otherwise]. During the trial, do not read, listen to, or watch any news report or commentary about the case from any source.

Do not use the Internet (, a dictionary/[, or <insert other relevant source of information or means of communication>]) in any way in connection with this case, either on your own or as a group. Do not investigate the facts or the law or do any research regarding this case. Do not conduct any tests or experiments, or visit the scene of any event involved in this case. If you happen to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate.

[If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, keep it turned off while you are in the courtroom and during jury deliberations. An electronic device includes any data storage device. If someone needs to contact you in an emergency, the court can receive messages that it will deliver to you without delay.]

During the trial, do not speak to a defendant, witness, lawyer, or anyone associated with them. Do not listen to anyone who tries to talk to you about the case or about any of the people or subjects involved in it. If someone asks you about the case, tell him or her that you cannot discuss it. If that person keeps talking to you about the case, you must end the conversation.

If you receive any information about this case from any source outside of the trial, even unintentionally, do not share that information with any other juror. If you do receive such information, or if anyone tries to influence you or any juror, you must immediately tell the bailiff.

Keep an open mind throughout the trial. Do not make up your mind about the verdict or any issue until after you have discussed the case with the other jurors during deliberations. Do not take anything I say or do during the trial as an indication of what I think about the facts, the witnesses, or what your verdict should be.

Do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision.

You must reach your verdict without any consideration of punishment.

I want to emphasize that you may not use any form of research or communication, including electronic or wireless research or communication, to research, share, communicate, or allow someone else to communicate with you regarding any subject of the trial. [If you violate this rule, you may be subject to jail time, a fine, or other punishment.]

When the trial has ended and you have been released as jurors, you may discuss the case with anyone. [But under California law, you must wait at least 90 days before negotiating or agreeing to accept any payment for information about the case.]

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jurors on how they must conduct themselves during trial. (Pen. Code, § 1122.) See also California Rules of Court, Rule 2.1035.

Do not instruct a jury in the penalty phase of a capital case that they cannot consider sympathy. (People v. Easley (1982) 34 Cal.3d 858, 875–880 [196 Cal.Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813].) Instead of this instruction, CALCRIM 761 is the proper introductory instruction for the penalty phase of a capital case.

If there will be a jury view, give the bracketed phrase “unless I tell you otherwise” in the fourth paragraph. (Pen. Code, § 1119.)

AUTHORITY

Statutory Admonitions. Pen. Code, § 1122.

Avoid Discussing the Case. People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199 [155 Cal.Rptr. 657, 595 P.2d 91]; In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 74, 860 P.2d 466]; In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634, 646–658 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665, 889 P.2d 985].

Avoid News Reports. People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1098, 1108–1111 [269 Cal.Rptr. 530, 790 P.2d 1327], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d. 394, 889 P.2d 588].

Judge’s Conduct as Indication of Verdict. People v. Hunt (1915) 26 Cal.App. 514, 517 [147 P. 476].

No Bias, Sympathy, or Prejudice. People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 73 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 841 P.2d 118].

No Independent Research. People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 642 [250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189]; People v. Castro (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 849, 853 [229 Cal.Rptr. 280]; People v. Sutter (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 806, 820 [184 Cal.Rptr. 829].

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182–1183 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].

Court’s Contempt Power for Violations of Admonitions. Pen. Code, § 1122(a)(1); Code Civ. Proc. § 1209(a)(6) (effective 1/1/12).

Secondary Sources

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, § 643.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 81, Jury Selection and Opening Statement, § 81.06[1], Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.05[1], [4] (Matthew Bender).

RELATED ISSUES

Admonition Not to Discuss Case With Anyone

In People v. Danks (2004) 32 Cal.4th 269, 298–300 [8 Cal.Rptr.3d 767, 82 P.3d 1249], a capital case, two jurors violated the court’s admonition not to discuss the case with anyone by consulting with their pastors regarding the death penalty. The Supreme Court stated:

It is troubling that during deliberations not one but two jurors had conversations with their pastors that ultimately addressed the issue being resolved at the penalty phase in this case. Because jurors instructed not to speak to anyone about the case except a fellow juror during deliberations …. may assume such an instruction does not apply to confidential relationships, we recommend the jury be expressly instructed that they may not speak to anyone about the case, except a fellow juror during deliberations, and that this includes, but is not limited to, spouses, spiritual leaders or advisers, or therapists. Moreover, the jury should also be instructed that if anyone, other than a fellow juror during deliberations, tells a juror his or her view of the evidence in the case, the juror should report that conversation immediately to the court.

(Id. at p. 306, fn. 11.)

The court may, at its discretion, add the suggested language to the second paragraph of this instruction.

Jury Misconduct

It is error to instruct the jury to immediately advise the court if a juror refuses to deliberate or expresses an intention to disregard the law or to decide the case based on penalty, punishment, or any other improper basis. (People v. Engelman (2002) 28 Cal.4th 436, 449 [121 Cal.Rptr.2d 862, 49 P.3d 209].)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 102: Note-Taking.

You have been given notebooks and may take notes during the trial. Do not remove them from the courtroom. You may take your notes into the jury room during deliberations. I do not mean to discourage you from taking notes, but here are some points to consider if you take notes:

1 Note-taking may tend to distract you. It may affect your ability to listen carefully to all the testimony and to watch the witnesses as they testify;

AND

2 The notes are for your own individual use to help you remember what happened during the trial. Please keep in mind that your notes may be inaccurate or incomplete.

At the end of the trial, your notes will be (collected and destroyed/collected and retained by the court but not as a part of the case record/<specify other disposition>).

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the members of the jury that they may take notes. California Rules of Court, Rule 2.1031.

The court may specify its preferred disposition of the notes after trial. No statute or rule of court requires any particular disposition.

AUTHORITY

Resolving Jurors’ Questions. Pen. Code, § 1137.

Jurors’ Use of Notes. California Rules of Court, Rule 2.1031

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1183 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].

Secondary Sources

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, § 643.

6 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Judgment, § 18.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.05[2] (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 103: Reasonable Doubt.

I will now explain the presumption of innocence and the People’s burden of proof. The defendant[s] (has/have) pleaded not guilty to the charge[s]. The fact that a criminal charge has been filed against the defendant[s] is not evidence that the charge is true. You must not be biased against the defendant[s] just because (he/she/they) (has/have) been arrested, charged with a crime, or brought to trial.

A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This presumption requires that the People prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever I tell you the People must prove something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt [unless I specifically tell you otherwise].

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

In deciding whether the People have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider all the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial. Unless the evidence proves the defendant[s] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, (he/she/they) (is/are) entitled to an acquittal and you must find (him/her/them) not guilty.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the presumption of innocence and the state’s burden of proof before deliberations. (People v. Vann (1974) 12 Cal.3d 220, 225–227 [115 Cal.Rptr. 352, 524 P.2d 824]; People v. Soldavini (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 460, 463 [114 P.2d 415]; People v. Phillips (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 952, 956–958 [69 Cal.Rptr.2d 532].) This instruction is included in this section for the convenience of judges who wish to instruct on this point during voir dire or before testimony begins.

If the court will be instructing that the prosecution must prove something by a preponderance of the evidence, give the bracketed phrase “unless I specifically tell you otherwise.”

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. Pen. Code, §§ 1096, 1096a; People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 503–504 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249]; Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 16–17 [114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583]; Lisenbee v. Henry (9th Cir. 1999) 166 F.3d 997.

Previous Version of CALCRIM 103 Upheld. People v. Reyes (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1496 [60 Cal.Rptr.3d 777].

Reference to Elements Not Required. People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088–1089 [78 Cal.Rptr.3d 186].

Secondary Sources

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, §§ 521, 637, 640.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 83, Evidence, § 83.03[1], Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, §§ 85.02[2][a][i], 85.04[2][a] (Matthew Bender).

COMMENTARY

This instruction is based directly on Penal Code section 1096. The primary changes are a reordering of concepts and a definition of reasonable doubt stated in the affirmative rather than in the negative. The instruction also refers to the jury’s duty to impartially compare and consider all the evidence. (See Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 16–17 [114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583].) The appellate courts have urged the trial courts to exercise caution in modifying the language of section 1096 to avoid error in defining reasonable doubt. (See People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 503–504 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249]; People v. Garcia (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 61 [126 Cal.Rptr. 275].) The instruction includes all the concepts contained in section 1096 and substantially tracks the statutory language.

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 104: Evidence.

You must decide what the facts are in this case. You must use only the evidence that is presented in the courtroom [or during a jury view]. “Evidence” is the sworn testimony of witnesses, the exhibits admitted into evidence, and anything else I tell you to consider as evidence. The fact that the defendant was arrested, charged with a crime, or brought to trial is not evidence of guilt.

Nothing that the attorneys say is evidence. In their opening statements and closing arguments, the attorneys will discuss the case, but their remarks are not evidence. Their questions are not evidence. Only the witnesses’ answers are evidence. The attorneys’ questions are significant only if they help you understand the witnesses’ answers. Do not assume that something is true just because one of the attorneys asks a question that suggests it is true.

During the trial, the attorneys may object to questions asked of a witness. I will rule on the objections according to the law. If I sustain an objection, the witness will not be permitted to answer, and you must ignore the question. If the witness does not answer, do not guess what the answer might have been or why I ruled as I did. If I order testimony stricken from the record, you must disregard it and must not consider that testimony for any purpose.

You must disregard anything you see or hear when the court is not in session, even if it is done or said by one of the parties or witnesses.

The court reporter is making a record of everything that was said during the trial. If you decide that it is necessary, you may ask that the court reporter’s record be read to you. You must accept the court reporter’s record as accurate.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

There is no sua sponte duty to instruct on these evidentiary topics; however, instruction on these principles has been approved. (See People v. Barajas (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 804, 809 [193 Cal.Rptr. 750]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 843–844 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 938 P.2d 2]; People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1121 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478].)

AUTHORITY

Evidence Defined. Evid. Code, § 140.

Arguments Not Evidence. People v. Barajas (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 804, 809 [193 Cal.Rptr. 750].

Questions Not Evidence. People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 843–844 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 938 P.2d 2].

Striking Testimony. People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1121 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478].

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1183 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].

Secondary Sources

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, § 636.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 83, Evidence, §§ 83.01[1], 83.02[2] (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 105: Witnesses.

You alone must judge the credibility or believability of the witnesses. In deciding whether testimony is true and accurate, use your common sense and experience. You must judge the testimony of each witness by the same standards, setting aside any bias or prejudice you may have. You may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s testimony. Consider the testimony of each witness and decide how much of it you believe.

In evaluating a witness’s testimony, you may consider anything that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or accuracy of that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider are:

How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?

How well was the witness able to remember and describe what happened?

What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?

Did the witness understand the questions and answer them directly?

Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided?

What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about testifying?

Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?

How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other evidence in the case?

[Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the witness testified?]

[Did the witness admit to being untruthful?]

[What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?]

[Has the witness been convicted of a felony?]

[Has the witness engaged in [other] conduct that reflects on his or her believability?]

[Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his or her testimony?]

Do not automatically reject testimony just because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently.

[If the evidence establishes that a witness’s character for truthfulness has not been discussed among the people who know him or her, you may conclude from the lack of discussion that the witness’s character for truthfulness is good.]

[If you do not believe a witness’s testimony that he or she no longer remembers something, that testimony is inconsistent with the witness’s earlier statement on that subject.]

[If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the part that you think is true and ignore the rest.]

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on factors relevant to a witness’s credibility. (People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 883–884 [123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247].) Although there is no sua sponte duty to instruct on inconsistencies in testimony or a witness who lies, there is authority approving instruction on both topics. (Dodds v. Stellar (1946) 77 Cal.App.2d 411, 426 [175 P.2d 607]; People v. Murillo (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1107 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 21].)

The court may strike any of the enumerated impermissible bases for bias that are clearly inapplicable in a given case.

Give all of the bracketed factors that are relevant based on the evidence. (Evid. Code, § 780(e), (i), and (k).)

Give any of the final three bracketed paragraphs if relevant based on the evidence.

AUTHORITY

Factors. Evid. Code, § 780; People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 883–884 [123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247].

Proof of Character by Negative Evidence. People v. Adams (1902) 137 Cal. 580, 582 [70 P. 662].

Inconsistencies. Dodds v. Stellar (1946) 77 Cal.App.2d 411, 426 [175 P.2d 607].

Witness Who Lies. People v. Murillo (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1107 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 21]; People v. Reyes (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 957, 965 [240 Cal.Rptr. 752]; People v. Johnson (1986) 190 Cal.App.3d 187, 192–194 [237 Cal.Rptr. 479].

Secondary Sources

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000), Criminal Trial, § 642.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, §§ 85.02[2][b], [c], 85.03[2][b] (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 106: Jurors Asking Questions.

If, during the trial, you have a question that you believe should be asked of a witness, you may write out the question and send it to me through the bailiff. I will discuss the question with the attorneys and decide whether it may be asked. Do not feel slighted or disappointed if your question is not asked. Your question may not be asked for a variety of reasons, including the reason that the question may call for an answer that is inadmissible for legal reasons. Also, do not guess the reason your question was not asked or speculate about what the answer might have been. Always remember that you are not advocates for one side or the other in this case. You are impartial judges of the facts.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

This instruction may be given on request.

AUTHORITY

Statutory Admonitions. See generally Pen. Code, § 1122.

Juror Questions. California Rules of Court, Rule 2.1033.

Secondary Sources

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000 Criminal Trial, § 643.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82, Witnesses, § 82.02[2] (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 200: Duties of Judge and Jury.

Members of the jury, I will now instruct you on the law that applies to this case. [I will give you a copy of the instructions to use in the jury room.] [Each of you has a copy of these instructions to use in the jury room.] [The instructions that you receive may be printed, typed, or written by hand. Certain sections may have been crossed-out or added. Disregard any deleted sections and do not try to guess what they might have been. Only consider the final version of the instructions in your deliberations.]

You must decide what the facts are. It is up to all of you, and you alone to decide what happened, based only on the evidence that has been presented to you in this trial.

Do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision. Bias includes, but is not limited to, bias for or against the witnesses, attorneys, defendant[s] or alleged victim[s], based on disability, gender, nationality, national origin, race or ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, [or] socioeconomic status (./,) [or <insert any other impermissible basis for bias as appropriate>.]

You must follow the law as I explain it to you, even if you disagree with it. If you believe that the attorneys’ comments on the law conflict with my instructions, you must follow my instructions.

Pay careful attention to all of these instructions and consider them together. If I repeat any instruction or idea, do not conclude that it is more important than any other instruction or idea just because I repeated it.

Some words or phrases used during this trial have legal meanings that are different from their meanings in everyday use. These words and phrases will be specifically defined in these instructions. Please be sure to listen carefully and follow the definitions that I give you. Words and phrases not specifically defined in these instructions are to be applied using their ordinary, everyday meanings.

Some of these instructions may not apply, depending on your findings about the facts of the case. [Do not assume just because I give a particular instruction that I am suggesting anything about the facts.] After you have decided what the facts are, follow the instructions that do apply to the facts as you find them.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct that the jurors are the exclusive judges of the facts and that they are entitled to a copy of the written instructions when they deliberate. (Pen. Code, §§ 1093(f), 1137.) Although there is no sua sponte duty to instruct on the other topics described in this instruction, there is authority approving instruction on these topics.

In the first paragraph, select the appropriate bracketed alternative on written instructions. Penal Code section 1093(f) requires the court to give the jury a written copy of the instructions on request. The committee believes that the better practice is to always provide the jury with written instructions. If the court, in the absence of a jury request, elects not to provide jurors with written instructions, the court must modify the first paragraph to inform the jurors that they may request a written copy of the instructions.

Do not give the bracketed sentence in the final paragraph if the court will be commenting on the evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1127.

AUTHORITY

Copies of Instructions. Pen. Code, §§ 1093(f), 1137.

Judge Determines Law. Pen. Code, §§ 1124, 1126; People v. Como (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1091 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 922]; see People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 455 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 21 P.3d 1209].

Jury to Decide the Facts. Pen. Code, § 1127.

Attorney’s Comments Are Not Evidence. People v. Stuart (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 57, 60–61 [335 P.2d 189].

Consider All Instructions Together. People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 679 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640]; People v. Rivers (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1046 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 602]; People v. Shaw (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 606, 623 [47 Cal.Rptr. 96].

Follow Applicable Instructions. People v. Palmer (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 679, 686–687 [173 P.2d 680].

No Bias, Sympathy, or Prejudice. Pen. Code, § 1127h; People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 73 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 841 P.2d 118].

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1185 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].

Secondary Sources

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, §§ 643, 644.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 80, Defendant’s Trial Rights, § 80.05[1], Ch. 83, Evidence, § 83.02, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, §§ 85.02[1], [2][c], 85.03[1], 85.05[2], [4] (Matthew Bender).

RELATED ISSUES

Jury Misconduct

It is error to instruct the jury to immediately advise the court if a juror refuses to deliberate or expresses an intention to disregard the law or to decide the case based on penalty, punishment, or any other improper basis. (People v. Engelman (2002) 28 Cal.4th 436, 449 [121 Cal.Rptr.2d 862, 49 P.3d 209].)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 201: Do Not Investigate.

Do not use the Internet (, a dictionary/[, or __________<insert other relevant source of information or means of communication>]) in any way in connection with this case, either on your own or as a group. Do not investigate the facts or the law or do any research regarding this case, either on your own, or as a group. Do not conduct any tests or experiments, or visit the scene of any event involved in this case. If you happen to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate.

New January 2006; Revised June 2007, April 2010, February 2012

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jurors on how they must conduct themselves during trial. (Pen. Code, § 1122.)

AUTHORITY

No Independent Research. Pen. Code, § 1122; People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 642 [250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189]; People v. Castro (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 849, 853 [229 Cal.Rptr. 280]; People v. Sutter (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 806, 820 [184 Cal.Rptr. 829].

Secondary Sources

6 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Judgment, § 21.

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 202: Note-Taking and Reading Back of Testimony.

[You have been given notebooks and may have taken notes during the trial. You may use your notes during deliberations.] Your notes are for your own individual use to help you remember what happened during the trial. Please keep in mind that your notes may be inaccurate or incomplete.

If there is a disagreement about the testimony [and stipulations] at trial, you may ask that the court reporter’s record be read to you. It is the record that must guide your deliberations, not your notes. You must accept the court reporter’s record as accurate.

Please do not remove your notes from the jury room.

At the end of the trial, your notes will be (collected and destroyed/collected and retained by the court but not as a part of the case record/<specify other disposition>).

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the members of the jury that they may take notes. California Rules of Court, Rule 2.1031.

The court may specify its preferred disposition of the notes after trial. No statute or rule of court requires any particular disposition.

AUTHORITY

• Jurors’ Use of Notes. California Rules of Court, Rule 2.1031.

Secondary Sources

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 83, Evidence, § 83.05[1], Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.05[2], [3], Ch. 87, Death Penalty, §§ 87.20, 87.24 (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 220: Reasonable Doubt.

The fact that a criminal charge has been filed against the defendant[s] is not evidence that the charge is true. You must not be biased against the defendant[s] just because (he/she/they) (has/have) been arrested, charged with a crime, or brought to trial.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the presumption of innocence and the state’s burden of proof. (People v. Vann (1974) 12 Cal.3d 220, 225–227 [115 Cal.Rptr. 352, 524 P.2d 824]; People v. Soldavini (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 460, 463 [114 P.2d 415]; People v. Phillips (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 952, 956–958 [69 Cal.Rptr.2d 532].)

If the court will be instructing that the prosecution has a different burden of proof, give the bracketed phrase “unless I specifically tell you otherwise.”

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. Pen. Code, §§ 1096, 1096a; People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 503–504 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249]; Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 16–17 [114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583]; Lisenbee v. Henry (9th Cir. 1999) 166 F.3d 997, 999.

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088–1089 [78 Cal.Rptr.3d 186].

This Instruction Does Not Suggest That Bias Against Defendant Is Permissible. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1185–1186 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].

Secondary Sources

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, §§ 521, 637, 640.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 83, Evidence, § 83.03[1], Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, §§ 85.02[1A][a], [2][a][i], 85.04[2][a] (Matthew Bender).

COMMENTARY

This instruction is based directly on Penal Code section 1096. The primary changes are a reordering of concepts and a definition of reasonable doubt stated in the affirmative rather than in the negative. The instruction also refers to the jury’s duty to impartially compare and consider all the evidence. (See Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 16–17 [114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583].) The appellate courts have urged the trial courts to exercise caution in modifying the language of section 1096 to avoid error in defining reasonable doubt. (See People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 503–504 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249]; People v. Garcia (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 61, 63 [126 Cal.Rptr. 275].) The instruction includes all the concepts contained in section 1096 and substantially tracks the statutory language. For an alternate view of instructing on reasonable doubt, see Committee on Standard Jury Instructions—Criminal, Minority Report to CALJIC “Reasonable Doubt” Report, in Alternative Definitions of Reasonable Doubt: A Report to the California Legislature (May 22, 1987; repr., San Francisco: Daily Journal, 1987) pp. 51–53.

RELATED ISSUES

Pinpoint Instruction on Reasonable Doubt

A defendant is entitled, on request, to a nonargumentative instruction that directs attention to the defense’s theory of the case and relates it to the state’s burden of proof. (People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180, 190 [84 Cal.Rptr. 711, 465 P.2d 847] [error to deny requested instruction relating defense evidence to the element of premeditation and deliberation].) Such an instruction is sometimes called a pinpoint instruction. “What is pinpointed is not specific evidence as such, but the theory of the defendant’s case. It is the specific evidence on which the theory of the defense ‘focuses’ which is related to reasonable doubt.” (People v. Adrian (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 335, 338 [185 Cal.Rptr. 506] [court erred in refusing to give requested instruction relating self-defense to burden of proof]; see also People v. Granados (1957) 49 Cal.2d 490, 496 [319 P.2d 346] [error to refuse instruction relating reasonable doubt to commission of felony in felony-murder case]; People v. Brown (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 674, 677–678 [199 Cal.Rptr. 680] [error to refuse instruction relating reasonable doubt to identification].)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 222: Evidence.

“Evidence” is the sworn testimony of witnesses, the exhibits admitted into evidence, and anything else I told you to consider as evidence.

Nothing that the attorneys say is evidence. In their opening statements and closing arguments, the attorneys discuss the case, but their remarks are not evidence. Their questions are not evidence. Only the witnesses’ answers are evidence. The attorneys’ questions are significant only if they helped you to understand the witnesses’ answers. Do not assume that something is true just because one of the attorneys asked a question that suggested it was true.

During the trial, the attorneys may have objected to questions or moved to strike answers given by the witnesses. I ruled on the objections according to the law. If I sustained an objection, you must ignore the question. If the witness was not permitted to answer, do not guess what the answer might have been or why I ruled as I did. If I ordered testimony stricken from the record you must disregard it and must not consider that testimony for any purpose.

You must disregard anything you saw or heard when the court was not in session, even if it was done or said by one of the parties or witnesses.

[During the trial, you were told that the People and the defense agreed, or stipulated, to certain facts. This means that they both accept those facts as true. Because there is no dispute about those facts you must also accept them as true.]

The court reporter has made a record of everything that was said during the trial. If you decide that it is necessary, you may ask that the court reporter’s record be read to you. You must accept the court reporter’s record as accurate.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

There is no sua sponte duty to instruct on these evidentiary topics; however, instruction on these topics has been approved. (People v. Barajas (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 804, 809 [193 Cal.Rptr. 750]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 843–844 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 938 P.2d 2]; People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1121 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478].)

If the parties stipulated to one or more facts, give the bracketed paragraph that begins with “During the trial, you were told.”

AUTHORITY

Evidence Defined. Evid. Code, § 140.

Arguments Not Evidence. People v. Barajas (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 804, 809 [193 Cal.Rptr. 750].

Questions Not Evidence. People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 843–844 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400].

Stipulations. Palmer v. City of Long Beach (1948) 33 Cal.2d 134, 141–142 [199 P.2d 952].

Striking Testimony. People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1121 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478].

Secondary Sources

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, §§ 636, 643.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 83, Evidence, §§ 83.01[1], 83.02[2] (Matthew Bender).

RELATED ISSUES

Non-Testifying Courtroom Conduct

There is authority for an instruction informing the jury to disregard defendant’s in-court, but non-testifying behavior. (People v. Garcia (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 82, 90 [206 Cal.Rptr. 468] [defendant was disruptive in court; court instructed jurors they should not consider this behavior in deciding guilt or innocence].) However, if the defendant has put his or her character in issue or another basis for relevance exists, such an instruction should not be given. (People v. Garcia, supra, 160 Cal.App.3d at p. 91, fn. 7; People v. Foster (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 20, 25 [246 Cal.Rptr. 855].)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 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. 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 logically and reasonably 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.

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.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction explaining direct and 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].) The court must give this instruction if the court will be giving either CALCRIM No. 224, Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence or CALCRIM No. 225, Circumstantial Evidence: Intent or Mental State.

The court, at its discretion, may give this instruction in any case in which circumstantial evidence has been presented.

AUTHORITY

Direct Evidence Defined. Evid. Code, § 410.

Logical and Reasonable Inference Defined. Evid. Code, § 600(b).

Difference Between Direct and Circumstantial Evidence. People v. Lim Foon (1915) 29 Cal.App. 270, 274 [155 P. 477] [no sua sponte duty to instruct, but court approves definition]; People v. Goldstein (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 146, 152–153 [293 P.2d 495] [sua sponte duty to instruct].

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1186 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Elements, § 3.

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, § 652.

1 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Circumstantial Evidence, § 117.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 83, Evidence, § 83.01[2], Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.03[2][a] (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 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.

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.

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].)

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].)

AUTHORITY

Direct Evidence Defined. Evid. Code, § 410.

Inference Defined. Evid. Code, § 600(b).

Between Two Reasonable Interpretations of Circumstantial Evidence, Accept the One That Points to Innocence. People v. Merkouris (1956) 46 Cal.2d 540, 560–562 [297 P.2d 999] [error to refuse requested instruction on this point]; People v. Johnson (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 58, 62 [328 P.2d 809] [sua sponte duty to instruct]; see People v. Wade (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1492 [46 Cal.Rptr.2d 645].

Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Entirely Consistent With a Theory of Guilt and Inconsistent With Any Other Rational Conclusion. People v. Bender (1945) 27 Cal.2d 164, 175 [163 P.2d 8] [sua sponte duty to instruct]; People v. Yrigoyen (1955) 45 Cal.2d 46, 49 [286 P.2d 1] [same].

Difference Between Direct and Circumstantial Evidence. People v. Lim Foon (1915) 29 Cal.App. 270, 274 [155 P. 477] [no sua sponte duty to instruct, but court approves definition]; People v. Goldstein (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 146, 152–153 [293 P.2d 495] [sua sponte duty to instruct].

Each Fact in Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Proved. People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 831 [299 P.2d 243] [error to refuse requested instruction on this point].

Sua Sponte Duty When Prosecutor’s Case Rests Substantially on Circumstantial Evidence. People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 351–352 [233 Cal.Rptr. 368, 729 P.2d 802].

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1186–1187 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Elements, § 3.

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, § 652.

1 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Circumstantial Evidence, § 117.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 83, Evidence, § 83.01[2], Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.03[2][a] (Matthew Bender).

RELATED ISSUES

Extrajudicial Admissions

Extrajudicial admissions are not the type of indirect evidence requiring instruction on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Wiley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 162, 174–175 [133 Cal.Rptr. 135, 554 P.2d 881].)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 225: Circumstantial Evidence: Intent or Mental State.

The People must prove not only that the defendant did the act[s] charged, but also that (he/she) acted with a particular (intent/ [and/or] mental state). The instruction for (the/each) crime [and allegation] explains the (intent/ [and/or] mental state) required.

A[n] (intent/ [and/or] mental state) may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that the defendant had the required (intent/ [and/or] mental state), you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant had the required (intent/ [and/or] mental state). If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions supports a finding that the defendant did have the required (intent/ [and/or] mental state) and another reasonable conclusion supports a finding that the defendant did not, you must conclude that the required (intent/ [and/or] mental state) was not proved by the circumstantial evidence. However, when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable.

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 the element of a specific intent or a mental state. (People v. Yrigoyen (1955) 45 Cal.2d 46, 49 [286 P.2d 1].)

Give this instruction when the defendant’s intent or mental state is the only element of the offense that rests substantially or entirely on circumstantial evidence. If other elements of the offense also rest substantially or entirely on circumstantial evidence, do not give this instruction. Give CALCRIM No. 224, Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence. (See People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 849 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347, 919 P.2d 1280]; People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 347 [116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432].)

If the court is also instructing on a strict-liability offense, the court may wish to modify this instruction to clarify the charges to which it applies.

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. People v. Lizarraga (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 476, 481–482 [268 Cal.Rptr. 262] [when both specific intent and mental state are elements].

Intent Manifested by Circumstances. Pen. Code, § 21(a).

Accept Reasonable Interpretation of Circumstantial Evidence That Points Against Specific Intent. People v. Yokum (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 245, 253–254 [302 P.2d 406], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Cook (1983) 33 Cal.3d 400, 413 [189 Cal.Rptr. 159, 658 P.2d 86].

Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Entirely Consistent With Existence of Specific Intent. People v. Yokum (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 245, 253–254 [302 P.2d 406], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Cook (1983) 33 Cal.3d 400, 413 [189 Cal.Rptr. 159, 658 P.2d 86].

Reject Unreasonable Interpretations. People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1049–1050 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388].

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Golde (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 101, 118 [77 Cal.Rptr.3d 120].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Elements, §§ 3, 6.

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, § 652.

1 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Circumstantial Evidence, § 117.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.03[2][a] (Matthew Bender).

RELATED ISSUES

General or Specific Intent Explained

A crime is a general-intent offense when the statutory definition of the crime consists of only the description of a particular act, without reference to intent to do a further act or achieve a future consequence. A crime is a specific-intent offense when the statutory definition refers to the defendant’s intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence. (People v. McDaniel (1979) 24 Cal.3d 661, 669 [156 Cal.Rptr. 865, 597 P.2d 124]; People v. Hood (1969) 1 Cal.3d 444, 456–457 [82 Cal.Rptr. 618, 462 P.2d 370]; People v. Swanson (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 104, 109 [190 Cal.Rptr. 768]; see, e.g., People v. Whitfield (1994) 7 Cal.4th 437, 449–450 [27 Cal.Rptr.2d 858, 868 P.2d 272] [second degree murder based on implied malice is a specific-intent crime].)

Only One Possible Inference

The fact that elements of a charged offense include mental elements that must necessarily be proved by inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence does not alone require an instruction on the effect to be given to such evidence. (People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 167 [246 Cal.Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629]; People v. Wiley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 162, 174–176 [133 Cal.Rptr. 135, 554 P.2d 881].) When the only inference to be drawn from circumstantial evidence points to the existence of a required specific intent or mental state, a circumstantial evidence instruction need not be given sua sponte, but should be given on request. (People v. Gordon (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 519, 531 [186 Cal.Rptr. 373]; People v. Morrisson (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 787, 793–794 [155 Cal.Rptr. 152].)

Direct Evidence, Extrajudicial Admission, or No Substantial Reliance

This instruction should not be given if direct evidence of the mental elements exists (People v. Wiley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 162, 175 [133 Cal.Rptr. 135, 554 P.2d 881]), if the only circumstantial evidence is an extrajudicial admission (People v. Gould (1960) 54 Cal.2d 621, 629 [7 Cal.Rptr. 273, 354 P.2d 865], overruled on other grounds in People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 271–272 [48 Cal.Rptr.2d 135, 906 P.2d 1290]), or if the prosecution does not substantially rely on circumstantial evidence (People v. DeLeon (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 602, 607–608 [188 Cal.Rptr. 63]).

See the Related Issues section of CALCRIM No. 224, Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence.

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 226: Witnesses.

You may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s testimony. Consider the testimony of each witness and decide how much of it you believe.

In evaluating a witness’s testimony, you may consider anything that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or accuracy of that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider are:

How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?

How well was the witness able to remember and describe what happened?

What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?

Did the witness understand the questions and answer them directly?

Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided?

What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about testifying?

Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?

How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other evidence in the case?

[Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the witness testified?]

[Did the witness admit to being untruthful?]

[What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?]

[Has the witness been convicted of a felony?]

[Has the witness engaged in [other] conduct that reflects on his or her believability?]

[Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his or her testimony?]

[If you do not believe a witness’s testimony that he or she no longer remembers something, that testimony is inconsistent with the witness’s earlier statement on that subject.]

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court may strike any of the enumerated impermissible bases for bias that are clearly inapplicable in a given case.

Give all of the bracketed factors that are relevant based on the evidence. (Evid. Code, § 780(e), (i), and (k).)

Give any of the final three bracketed paragraphs if relevant based on the evidence.

If the court instructs on a prior felony conviction or prior misconduct admitted pursuant to People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 418, 841 P.2d 938], the court should consider whether to give CALCRIM No. 316, Additional Instructions on Witness Credibility—Other Conduct. (See Bench Notes to that instruction.)

Authority

Factors. Evid. Code, § 780; People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 883–884 [123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247].

Inconsistencies. Dodds v. Stellar (1946) 77 Cal.App.2d 411, 426 [175 P.2d 607].

Witness Who Lies. People v. Murillo (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1107 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 21].

Proof of Character by Negative Evidence. 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 (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, § 642.

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).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 240: Causation.

An act [or omission] causes (injury/<insert other description>) if the (injury/<insert other description>) is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act [or omission] and the (injury/<insert other description>) would not have happened without the act [or omission]. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, consider all the circumstances established by the evidence.

<Give if multiple potential causes.>

[There may be more than one cause of (injury/<insert other description>). An act [or omission] causes (injury/<insert other description>), only if it is a substantial factor in causing the (injury/<insert other description>). A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not have to be the only factor that causes the (injury/<insert other description>).]

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

If causation is at issue, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on proximate cause. (People v. Bernhardt (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 567, 590–591 [35 Cal.Rptr. 401]; People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 Cal.4th 860, 866–874 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 148, 29 P.3d 225].) The committee has addressed causation in those instructions where the issue is most likely to arise. If the particular facts of the case raise a causation issue and other instructions do not adequately cover the point, give this instruction.

If there is evidence of multiple potential causes, the court should also give the bracketed paragraph. (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 845–849 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 129, 29 P.3d 209]; People v. Autry (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 351, 363 [43 Cal.Rptr.2d 135].)

AUTHORITY

Proximate Cause. People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 Cal.4th 860, 866–874 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 148, 29 P.3d 225]; People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 315–322 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 276, 826 P.2d 274].

Substantial Factor. People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 845–849 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 129, 29 P.3d 209]; People v. Autry (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 351, 363 [43 Cal.Rptr.2d 135].

Independent Intervening Cause. People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 Cal.4th 860, 856–874 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 148, 29 P.3d 225].

Causation Instructions. People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 845–849 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 129, 29 P.3d 209]; People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 311–322 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 276, 826 P.2d 274]; People v. Autry (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 351, 363 [43 Cal.Rptr.2d 135].

Instructional Duty. People v. Bernhardt (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 567, 590–591 [35 Cal.Rptr. 401].

Natural and Probable Consequences Defined. See People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 291 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 926 P.2d 1013] (conc. & dis. opn. of Brown, J.).

Act or Omission. People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 Cal.4th 860, 866 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 148, 29 P.3d 225].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Elements, §§ 35–44.

1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against the Person, § 93.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.02[1A][a] (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 140, Challenges to Crimes, § 140.04 (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 250: Union of Act and Intent: General Intent.

The crime[s] [or other allegation[s]] charged in this case require[s] proof of the union, or joint operation, of act and wrongful intent.

For you to find a person guilty of the crime[s] (in this case/ of <insert name[s] of alleged offense[s] and count[s], e.g., battery, as charged in Count 1> [or to find the allegation[s] of <insert name[s] of enhancement[s]> true]), that person must not only commit the prohibited act [or fail to do the required act], but must do so with wrongful intent. A person acts with wrongful intent when he or she intentionally does a prohibited act [or fails to do a required act]; however, it is not required that he or she intend to break the law. The act required is explained in the instruction for that crime [or allegation].

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the union of act and general criminal intent. (People v. Jeffers (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 917, 920–923 [49 Cal.Rptr.2d 86].) However, this instruction must not be used if the crime requires a specific mental state, such as knowledge or malice, even if the crime is classified as a general intent offense. In such cases, the court must give CALCRIM No. 251, Union of Act and Intent: Specific Intent or Mental State.

If the case involves both offenses requiring a specific intent or mental state and offenses that do not, the court may give CALCRIM No. 252, Union of Act and Intent: General and Specific Intent Together, in place of this instruction.

The court should specify for the jury which offenses require only a general criminal intent by inserting the names of the offenses and count numbers where indicated in the second paragraph of the instruction. (People v. Hill (1967) 67 Cal.2d 105, 118 [60 Cal.Rptr. 234, 429 P.2d 586].) If all the charged crimes and allegations involve general intent, the court need not provide a list in the blank provided in this instruction.

If the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting or conspiracy to commit a general-intent offense, the court must instruct on the specific intent required for aiding and abetting or conspiracy. (See People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1117–1118 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 188, 24 P.3d 1210]; People v. Bernhardt, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d at pp. 586–587.)

If the defendant is also charged with a criminal negligence or strict liability offense, insert the name of the offense where indicated in the first sentence. The court may also give CALCRIM No. 253, Union of Act and Intent: Criminal Negligence, or CALCRIM No. 254, Union of Act and Intent: Strict-Liability Crime.

Defenses—Instructional Duty

“A person who commits a prohibited act ‘through misfortune or by accident, when it appears that there was no evil design, intention or culpable negligence’ has not committed a crime.” (People v. Jeffers (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 917, 922 [49 Cal.Rptr.2d 86] [quoting Pen. Code, § 26].) Similarly, an honest and reasonable mistake of fact may negate general criminal intent. (People v. Hernandez (1964) 61 Cal.2d 529, 535–536 [39 Cal.Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673].) If there is sufficient evidence of these or other defenses, such as unconsciousness, the court has a sua sponte duty to give the appropriate defense instructions. (See Defenses and Insanity, CALCRIM No. 3400 et seq.)

AUTHORITY

Statutory Authority. Pen. Code, § 20; see also Evid. Code, §§ 665, 668.

Instructional Requirements. People v. Hill (1967) 67 Cal.2d 105, 117 [60 Cal.Rptr. 234, 429 P.2d 586]; People v. Bernhardt (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 567, 586–587 [35 Cal.Rptr. 401]; People v. Jeffers (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 917, 920–923 [49 Cal.Rptr.2d 86].

History of General-Intent Requirement. Morissette v. United States (1952) 342 U.S. 246 [72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288]; see also People v. Garcia (2001) 25 Cal.4th 744, 754 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 355, 23 P.3d 590].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Elements, §§ 1–5.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.03[2][e] (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 140, Challenges to Crimes, § 140.02[1], [2] (Matthew Bender).

RELATED ISSUES

Sex Registration and Knowledge of Legal Duty

The offense of failure to register as a sex offender requires proof that the defendant actually knew of his or her duty to register. (People v. Garcia (2001) 25 Cal.4th 744, 754 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 355, 23 P.3d 590].) For the charge of failure to register, it is error to give an instruction on general criminal intent that informs the jury that a person is “acting with general criminal intent, even though he may not know that his act or conduct is unlawful.” (People v. Barker (2004) 34 Cal.4th 345, 360 [18 Cal.Rtpr.3d 260]; People v. Edgar (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 210, 219 [127 Cal.Rptr.2d 662].) In such cases, the court should give CALCRIM No. 251, Union of Act and Intent: Specific Intent or Mental State, instead of this instruction.

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 300: All Available Evidence

Neither side is required to call all witnesses who may have information about the case or to produce all physical evidence that might be relevant.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court is not required to give this instruction sua sponte; however, it should be given on request. (See generally Pen. Code, §§ 1093(f), 1127; People v. Pitts (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 606, 880, 881 [273 Cal.Rptr. 757].)

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. People v. Simms (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 299, 313 [89 Cal.Rptr.1].

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1189–1190 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].

Secondary Sources

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82, Witnesses, Ch. 83, Evidence (Matthew Bender).

RELATED ISSUES

Willful Suppression of or Failure to Obtain Evidence

Willful suppression of evidence by the government constitutes a denial of a fair trial and of due process. (People v. Noisey (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 543, 549–550 [71 Cal.Rptr. 339].) Likewise, willful failure by investigating officers to obtain evidence that would clear a defendant would amount to a denial of due process of law. (Ibid.) However, failure to look for evidence is different from suppressing known evidence and “the mere fact that investigating officers did not pursue every possible means of investigation of crime does not, standing alone, constitute denial of due process or suppression of evidence.” (Ibid.; see also People v. Tuthill (1947) 31 Cal.2d 92, 97–98 [187 P.2d 16], overruled on other grounds as noted by People v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144, 182 [222 Cal.Rptr. 184, 711 P.2d 480] [“[t]here is no compulsion on the prosecution to call any particular witness or to make any particular tests so long as there is fairly presented to the court the material evidence bearing upon the charge for which the defendant is on trial.”].)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 301: Single Witness’s Testimony.

[Except for the testimony of <insert witness’s name>, which requires supporting evidence [if you decide (he/she) is an accomplice],] (the/The) testimony of only one witness can prove any fact. Before you conclude that the testimony of one witness proves a fact, you should carefully review all the evidence.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give an instruction on this issue in every case. (People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 884–885 [123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247].) Insert the bracketed language if the testimony of an accomplice or other witness requires corroboration. (People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 831–832 [218 Cal.Rptr. 49, 705 P.2d 372].)

The following constitutional provisions and statutes require evidence that corroborates a witness’s testimony: Cal. Const., art. I, § 18 [treason]; Pen. Code, §§ 1111 [accomplice testimony]; 653f [solicitation of felony]; 118 [perjury]; 1108 [abortion and seduction of minor]; 532 [obtaining property by false pretenses].

Give the bracketed phrase “if you decide (he/she) is an accomplice” and CALCRIM No. 334 if the jury must determine whether a witness is an accomplice.

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. Evid. Code, § 411; People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 885 [123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247].

Corroboration Required. People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 831–832 [218 Cal.Rptr. 49, 705 P.2d 372].

Secondary Sources

3 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Presentation, § 111.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.03[2][b] (Matthew Bender).

RELATED ISSUES

Uncorroborated Testimony of Defendant

The cautionary admonition regarding a single witness’s testimony applies with equal force to uncorroborated testimony by a defendant. (People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 696, fn. 14 [268 Cal.Rptr. 706, 789 P.2d 887].)

Uncorroborated Testimony in Sex Offense Cases

In a prosecution for forcible rape, an instruction that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient may be given in conjunction with an instruction that there is no legal corroboration requirement in a sex offense case. Both instructions correctly state the law and because each focuses on a different legal point, there is no implication that the victim’s testimony is more credible than the defendant’s testimony. (People v. Gammage (1992) 2 Cal.4th 693, 700–702 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 541, 828 P.2d 682] [resolving split of authority on whether the two instructions can be given together].)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 302: Evaluating Conflicting Evidence.

If you determine there is a conflict in the evidence, you must decide what evidence, if any, to believe. Do not simply count the number of witnesses who agree or disagree on a point and accept the testimony of the greater number of witnesses. On the other hand, do not disregard the testimony of any witness without a reason or because of prejudice or a desire to favor one side or the other. What is important is whether the testimony or any other evidence convinces you, not just the number of witnesses who testify about a certain point.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on weighing contradictory evidence unless corroborating evidence is required. (People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 884 [123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247].)

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 884 [123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247].

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Reyes (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1497 [60 Cal.Rptr.3d 777]; People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1190 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].

Secondary Sources

3 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Presentation, § 88.

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, § 649.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.03[2][b] (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 303: Limited Purpose Evidence in General.

During the trial, certain evidence was admitted for a limited purpose. You may consider that evidence only for that purpose and for no other.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has no sua sponte duty to give an admonition limiting consideration of evidence; however, it must be given on request. (Evid. Code, § 355; People v. Simms (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 299, 311 [89 Cal.Rptr. 1].)

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. Evid. Code, § 355; People v. Simms (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 299, 311 [89 Cal.Rptr. 1].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Circumstantial Evidence, §§ 30, 31, 35.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 83, Evidence, § 83.04[3], Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.02[2][b] (Matthew Bender).

RELATED ISSUES

Timing of Instruction

The court has discretion to give limiting instructions at the time the evidence is admitted or at the close of evidence. (People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 533–534 [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 680, 950 P.2d 1035] [giving limiting instruction regarding use of defendant’s statements to psychiatrist at close of all evidence did not result in error].)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 316: Additional Instructions on Witness Credibility—Other Conduct.

<Alternative A—felony conviction>

[If you find that a witness has been convicted of a felony, you may consider that fact [only] in evaluating the credibility of the witness’s testimony. The fact of a conviction does not necessarily destroy or impair a witness’s credibility. It is up to you to decide the weight of that fact and whether that fact makes the witness less believable.]

<Alternative B—prior criminal conduct with or without conviction>

[If you find that a witness has committed a crime or other misconduct, you may consider that fact [only] in evaluating the credibility of the witness’s testimony. The fact that a witness may have committed a crime or other misconduct does not necessarily destroy or impair a witness’s credibility. It is up to you to decide the weight of that fact and whether that fact makes the witness less believable.]

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

There is no sua sponte duty to give this instruction; however, the instruction must be given on request. (People v. Kendrick (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1273, 1278 [260 Cal.Rptr. 27]; People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1051–1052 [16 Cal.Rptr.3d 880, 94 P.3d 1080] [overruling People v. Mayfield (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 236 [100 Cal.Rptr. 104], which had found a sua sponte duty to give limiting instruction on felony conviction admitted for impeachment].)

If a felony conviction or other misconduct has been admitted only on the issue of credibility, give the bracketed word “only.”

Do not give this instruction if a conviction also has been admitted to prove an element of a charged offense. (People v. Dewberry (1959) 51 Cal.2d 548, 553–554 [334 P.2d 852].)

It is unclear whether this instruction is appropriate if the evidence also has been admitted for a purpose other than to prove an element of the offense (as discussed above). For example, the evidence may have been admitted under Evidence Code section 1108. In such cases, if the court does give this instruction, the court may omit the bracketed “only.”

AUTHORITY

Limiting Instruction Must Be Given on Request. People v. Kendrick (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1273, 1278 [260 Cal.Rptr. 27]; People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1051–1052 [16 Cal.Rptr.3d 880, 94 P.3d 1080].

Felony Conviction Admissible for Impeachment. Evid. Code, § 788.

Standard for Admitting Felony Conviction. People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 306–319 [211 Cal.Rptr. 719, 696 P.2d 111]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 451–452 [99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1].

Misdemeanor Conduct Admissible for Impeachment. People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 295–296 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 418, 841 P.2d 938].

Record Must Demonstrate Court Conducted Evid. Code, § 352 Weighing. People v. Navarez (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 936, 950 [215 Cal.Rptr. 519].

Modifications to this Instruction Created Error. People v. Gray (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 635, 640–641 [69 Cal.Rptr.3d 876].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Presentation, §§ 292–314.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82, Witnesses, § 82.22[3][e], Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, §§ 85.02[2][b], 85.03[2][b] (Matthew Bender).

5 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 105, Executive Clemency, § 105.04[3] (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 318: Prior Statements as Evidence.

You have heard evidence of [a] statement[s] that a witness made before the trial. If you decide that the witness made (that/those) statement[s], you may use (that/those) statement[s] in two ways:

1 To evaluate whether the witness’s testimony in court is believable;

AND

2 As evidence that the information in (that/those) earlier statement[s] is true.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has no sua sponte duty to give this instruction. (People v. Griffin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1011, 1026 [251 Cal.Rptr. 643, 761 P.2d 103].) Use this instruction when a testifying witness has been confronted with a prior inconsistent statement.

If prior testimony of an unavailable witness was impeached with a prior inconsistent statement, use CALCRIM No. 319, Prior Statements of Unavailable Witness. (People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 668–669 [128 Cal.Rptr. 888, 547 P.2d 1000].) If the prior statements were obtained by a peace officer in violation of Miranda, give CALCRIM No. 356, Miranda-Defective Statements.

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. California v. Green (1970) 399 U.S. 149, 158 [90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489]; People v. Cannady (1972) 8 Cal.3d 379, 385–386 [105 Cal.Rptr. 129, 503 P.2d 585]; see Evid. Code, §§ 770, 791, 1235, 1236.

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Tuggles (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 339, 363-367 [100 Cal.Rptr.3d 820]; People v. Golde (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 101, 120 [77 Cal.Rptr.3d 120].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Hearsay, § 157.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82, Witnesses, § 82.22[3][b], Ch. 83, Evidence, § 83.13[3][e], [f], Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.03[2][b] (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 333: Opinion Testimony of Lay Witness.

(A witness/Witnesses)[, who (was/were) not testifying as [an] expert[s],] gave (his/her/their) opinion[s] during the trial. You may but are not required to accept (that/those) opinion[s] as true or correct. You may give the opinion[s] whatever weight you think appropriate. Consider the extent of the witness’s opportunity to perceive the matters on which his or her opinion is based, the reasons the witness gave for any opinion, and the facts or information on which the witness relied in forming that opinion. You must decide whether information on which the witness relied was true and accurate. You may disregard all or any part of an opinion that you find unbelievable, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

Give this instruction on request when a lay witness gives opinion testimony.

Give the bracketed phrase “who was not testifying as an expert” if an expert witness also testified in the case.

Related Instructions

CALCRIM No. 332, Expert Witness Testimony.

CALCRIM No. 1860, Owner’s Opinion of Value.

AUTHORITY

Opinion Testimony. Evid. Code, §§ 800, 802.

Opinion Testimony to Prove Character. Evid. Code, § 1100.

Jury Must Decide What Weight to Give Lay Opinion. See People v. Pena (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 100, 102–103 [135 Cal.Rptr. 602].

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Golde (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 101, 120 [77 Cal.Rptr.3d 120].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Opinion Evidence, §§ 3–25.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82, Witnesses, § 82.22[3][d], Ch. 83, Evidence, § 83.11 (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 350: Character of Defendant.

You have heard character testimony that the defendant (is a <insert character trait relevant to crime[s] committed> person/ [or] has a good reputation for <insert character trait relevant to crime[s] committed> in the community where (he/she) lives or works).

Evidence of the defendant’s character for <insert character trait relevant to crime[s] committed> can by itself create a reasonable doubt [whether the defendant committed <insert name[s] of alleged offenses[s] and count[s], e.g., battery, as charged in Count 1>]. However, evidence of the defendant’s good character may be countered by evidence of (his/her) bad character for the same trait. You must decide the meaning and importance of the character evidence.

[If the defendant’s character for certain traits has not been discussed among those who know (him/her), you may assume that (his/her) character for those traits is good.]

You may take that testimony into consideration along with all the other evidence in deciding whether the People have proved that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has no sua sponte duty to give an instruction on defendant’s character; however, it must be given on request. (People v. Bell (1875) 49 Cal. 485, 489–490 [jury should be instructed that evidence of good reputation should be weighed as any other fact established and may be sufficient to create reasonable doubt of guilt]; People v. Jones (1954) 42 Cal.2d 219, 222 [266 P.2d 38] [character evidence may be sufficient to create reasonable doubt of guilt]; People v. Wilson (1913) 23 Cal.App. 513, 523–524 [138 P. 971] [court erred in failing to give requested instruction or any instruction on character evidence].)

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. People v. Bell (1875) 49 Cal. 485, 489–490; People v. Wilson (1913) 23 Cal.App. 513, 523–524 [138 P. 971]; People v. Jones (1954) 42 Cal.2d 219, 222 [266 P.2d 38].

Character Evidence Must Be Relevant to Offense Charged. People v. Taylor (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 622, 629 [225 Cal.Rptr. 733].

Admissibility. Evid. Code, §§ 1100–1102.

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Circumstantial Evidence, § 53.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82, Witnesses, § 82.22[3][d], [e][ii], Ch. 83, Evidence, § 83.12[1] (Matthew Bender).

RELATED ISSUES

No Discussion of Character Is Evidence of Good Character

The fact that the defendant’s character or reputation has not been discussed or questioned among those who know him or her is evidence of the defendant’s good character and reputation. (People v. Castillo (1935) 5 Cal.App.2d 194, 198 [42 P.2d 682].) However, the defendant must have resided in the community for a sufficient period of time and become acquainted with the community in order for his or her character to have become known and for some sort of reputation to have been established. (See Evid. Code, § 1324 [reputation may be shown in the community where defendant resides and in a group with which he or she habitually associates]; see also People v. Pauli (1922) 58 Cal.App. 594, 596 [209 P. 88] [witness’s testimony about defendant’s good reputation in community was inappropriate where defendant was a stranger in the community, working for a single employer for a few months, going about little, and forming no associations].)

Business Community

The community for purposes of reputation evidence may also be the defendant’s business community and associates. (People v. Cobb (1955) 45 Cal.2d 158, 163 [287 P.2d 752].)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 351: Cross-Examination of Character Witness.

The attorney for the People was allowed to ask defendant’s character witness[es] if (he/she/they) had heard that the defendant had engaged in certain conduct. These “have you heard” questions and their answers are not evidence that the defendant engaged in any such conduct. You may consider these questions and answers only to evaluate the meaning and importance of (the/a) character witness’s testimony.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has no sua sponte duty to give an instruction on cross-examination of character witnesses; however it must be given on request. (People v. Hempstead (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 949, 954 [196 Cal.Rptr. 412] [when cross-examination of character witness is permitted, a limiting admonition should be given]; Evid. Code, § 355.)

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. People v. Hempstead (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 949, 954 [196 Cal.Rptr. 412]; People v. Eli (1967) 66 Cal.2d 63, 79 [56 Cal.Rptr. 916, 424 P.2d 356].

Secondary Sources

3 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Presentation, § 243.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82, Witnesses, § 82.22[3][d], Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.02[2][b], Ch. 87, Death Penalty, § 87.23[5] (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 355: Defendant’s Right Not to Testify.

A defendant has an absolute constitutional right not to testify. He or she may rely on the state of the evidence and argue that the People have failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Do not consider, for any reason at all, the fact that the defendant did not testify. Do not discuss that fact during your deliberations or let it influence your decision in any way.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

This instruction should only be given on request. (Carter v. Kentucky (1981) 450 U.S. 288, 300 [101 S.Ct. 1112, 67 L.Ed.2d 241]; People v. Evans (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 186, 191 [72 Cal.Rptr.2d 543].)

The court has no sua sponte duty to seek a personal waiver of the instruction from the defendant. (People v. Towey (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 880, 884 [112 Cal.Rptr.2d 326].)

The United States Supreme Court has held that the court may give this instruction over the defendant’s objection (Lakeside v. Oregon (1978) 435 U.S. 333, 340-341 [98 S.Ct. 1091, 55 L.Ed.2d 319]), but as a matter of state judicial policy, the California Supreme Court has found otherwise. (People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 314 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 276, 826 P.2d 274] [“[T]he purpose of the instruction is to protect the defendant, and if the defendant does not want it given the trial court should accede to that request, notwithstanding the lack of a constitutional requirement to do so.”].)

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 282 [266 Cal.Rptr. 834, 786 P.2d 892] [no sua sponte duty to instruct].

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1191–1192 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].

Secondary Sources

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, §§ 642, 658.

2 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Witnesses, § 439.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 80, Defendant’s Trial Rights, § 80.08, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, §§ 85.02[1A][a], 85.04[2][b] (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 358: Evidence of Defendant’s Statements.

You have heard evidence that the defendant made [an] oral or written statement[s] (before the trial/while the court was not in session). You must decide whether the defendant made any (such/of these) statement[s], in whole or in part. If you decide that the defendant made such [a] statement[s], consider the statement[s], along with all the other evidence, in reaching your verdict. It is up to you to decide how much importance to give to the statement[s].

[Consider with caution any statement made by (the/a) defendant tending to show (his/her) guilt unless the statement was written or otherwise recorded.]

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction when there is evidence of an out-of-court oral statement by the defendant.

In addition, the court has a sua sponte duty to give the bracketed cautionary instruction when there is evidence of an incriminating out-of-court oral statement made by the defendant. (People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 455–456 [99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1].) An exception is that in the penalty phase of a capital trial, the bracketed paragraph should be given only if the defense requests it. (People v. Livaditis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 759, 784 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 831 P.2d 297].)

The bracketed cautionary instruction is not required when the defendant’s incriminating statements are written or tape-recorded. (People v. Gardner (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 829, 833 [16 Cal.Rptr. 256]; People v. Hines (1964) 61 Cal.2d 164, 173 [37 Cal.Rptr. 622, 390 P.2d 398], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 774, fn. 40 [175 Cal.Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446]; People v. Scherr (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 165, 172 [77 Cal.Rptr. 35]; People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1200 [120 Cal.Rptr.2d 477, 47 P.3d 262] [admonition to view non-recorded statements with caution applies only to a defendant’s incriminating statements].) If the jury heard both inculpatory and exculpatory, or only inculpatory, statements attributed to the defendant, give the bracketed paragraph. If the jury heard only exculpatory statements by the defendant, do not give the bracketed paragraph.

When a defendant’s statement is a verbal act, as in conspiracy cases, this instruction applies. (People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189, 1224 [249 Cal.Rptr. 71, 756 P.2d 795]; People v. Ramirez (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 347, 352 [114 Cal.Rptr. 916]; see also, e.g., Peabody v. Phelps (1858) 9 Cal. 213, 229 [similar, in civil cases]; but see People v. Zichko (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1057 [13 Cal.Rptr.3d 509] [no sua sponte duty to instruct with CALJIC 2.71 in criminal threat case because “truth” of substance of the threat was not relevant and instructing jury to view defendant’s statement with caution could suggest that exercise of “caution” supplanted need for finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt].)

When a defendant’s statement is an element of the crime, as in conspiracy or criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422), this instruction does not apply. (People v. Zichko (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1057 [13 Cal.Rptr.3d 509].)

Related Instructions

If out-of-court oral statements made by the defendant are prominent pieces of evidence in the trial, then CALCRIM No. 359, Corpus Delicti: Independent Evidence of a Charged Crime, may also have to be given together with the bracketed cautionary instruction.

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 455–456 [99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1]; People v. Livaditis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 759, 784 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 831 P.2d 297].

Secondary Sources

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, §§ 614, 641, 650.

1 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Hearsay, § 51.

3 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Presentation, § 113.

2 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 30, Confessions and Admissions, § 30.57 (Matthew Bender).

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 359: Corpus Delicti: Independent Evidence of a Charged Crime.

The defendant may not be convicted of any crime based on (his/her) out-of-court statement[s] alone. You may only rely on the defendant’s out-of-court statements to convict (him/her) if you conclude that other evidence shows that the charged crime [or a lesser included offense] was committed.

That other evidence may be slight and need only be enough to support a reasonable inference that a crime was committed.

The identity of the person who committed the crime [and the degree of the crime] may be proved by the defendant’s statement[s] alone.

You may not convict the defendant unless the People have proved (his/her) guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on corpus delicti whenever an accused’s extrajudicial statements form part of the prosecution’s evidence. (People v. Howk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 687, 707 [16 Cal.Rptr. 370, 365 P.2d 426].)

The corpus delicti cannot be proved by statements made before or after the crime, but can be proved by statements made during the crime. (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 394 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708].)

Give the bracketed language in the first paragraph if the court will be instructing on lesser included offenses.

Related Instructions

Since the corpus delicti instruction concerns statements of guilt by the defendant, this instruction must always be given along with CALCRIM No. 358, Evidence of Defendant’s Statements. If the statements are reported oral statements, the bracketed cautionary paragraph in CALCRIM No. 358 must also be given.

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 342 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846]; People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 368 [279 Cal.Rptr. 780, 807 P.2d 1009]; People v. Howk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 687, 707 [16 Cal.Rptr. 370, 365 P.2d 426].

Burden of Proof. People v. Lara (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 658, 676.

This Instruction Correctly States the Law. People v. Reyes (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1496 [60 Cal.Rptr.3d 777].

Corpus Delicti Rule Does Not Apply Generally to All Uncharged Acts. People v. Davis (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 617, 636 [86 Cal.Rptr.3d 55].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Elements, §§ 45–52.

2 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 30, Confessions and Admissions, §§ 30.04[2], 30.57 (Matthew Bender).

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.04[2][c], Ch. 87, Death Penalty, § 87.13[17][e] (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 140, Challenges to Crimes, § 140.01 (Matthew Bender).

COMMENTARY

Harm Caused by Criminal Conduct

The instruction states that the other evidence need only “be enough to support a reasonable inference that someone’s criminal conduct caused an injury, loss, or harm.” This is based in part on People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1171 [119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372], in which the court stated that “[t]here is no requirement of independent evidence ‘of every physical act constituting an element of an offense,’ so long as there is some slight or prima facie showing of injury, loss, or harm by a criminal agency.” (Citing People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 303 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 793, 949 P.2d 890].)

Scope of Corpus Delicti

The following are not elements of a crime and need not be proved by independent evidence: the degree of the crime charged (People v. Cooper (1960) 53 Cal.2d 755, 765 [3 Cal.Rptr. 148, 349 P.2d 964]), the identity of the perpetrator (People v. Westfall (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 598, 601 [18 Cal.Rptr. 356]), elements of the underlying felony when the defendant is charged with felony murder (People v. Cantrell (1973) 8 Cal.3d 672, 680–681 [105 Cal.Rptr. 792, 504 P.2d 1256], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Wetmore (1978) 22 Cal.3d 318, 324 [149 Cal.Rptr. 265, 583 P.2d 1308] and People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684–685, fn. 12 [160 Cal.Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1]), special circumstances when the defendant is charged with a felony-based special circumstance murder as listed in Penal Code section 190.2(a)(17) (Pen. Code, § 190.41; see People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 341, fn. 13 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846]), the knowledge and intent required for aider-abettor liability (People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1128–1129 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 373, 52 P.3d 572]; People v. Ott (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 118, 131 [148 Cal.Rptr. 479]), or facts necessary for a sentencing enhancement (see People v. Shoemake (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 243, 252–256 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 36]).

RELATED ISSUES

Truth-in-Evidence Initiative

The “truth-in-evidence” provision of the California Constitution abrogates the corpus delicti rule insofar as it restricts the admissibility of incriminatory extrajudicial statements by an accused. (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1173–1174 [119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372]; see Cal. Const., art. I, § 28(d) [Proposition 8 of the June 8, 1982 General Election].) The constitutional provision, however, does not eliminate the rule insofar as it prohibits conviction when the only evidence that the crime was committed is the defendant’s own statements outside of court. Thus, the provision does not affect the rule to the extent it requires a jury instruction that no person may be convicted absent evidence of the crime independent of his or her out-of-court statements. (People v. Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1180.)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 370: Motive.

The People are not required to prove that the defendant had a motive to commit (any of the crimes/the crime) charged. In reaching your verdict you may, however, consider whether the defendant had a motive.

Having a motive may be a factor tending to show that the defendant is guilty. Not having a motive may be a factor tending to show the defendant is not guilty.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court does not have a sua sponte duty to instruct on motive. (People v. Romo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 189, 196 [121 Cal.Rptr. 111, 534 P.2d 1015] [not error to refuse instruction on motive].)

Do not give this instruction if motive is an element of the crime charged. (See, e.g., CALCRIM No. 1122, Annoying or Molesting a Child.)

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. People v. Romo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 189, 195–196 [121 Cal.Rptr. 111, 534 P.2d 1015]; People v. Young (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 106, 110 [87 Cal.Rptr. 767].

Jury May Consider Motive. People v. Brown (1900) 130 Cal. 591, 594 [62 P. 1072]; People v. Gonzales (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 867, 877–878 [198 P.2d 81].

Proof of Presence or Absence of Motive Not Required. People v. Daly (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 47, 59 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 21]; People v. Scheer (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1017–1018 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 676].

This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1192–1193 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Elements, § 4.

1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Defenses, § 249.

1 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Circumstantial Evidence, § 119.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.03[2][c] (Matthew Bender).

RELATED ISSUES

Entrapment Defense

The court should not instruct on motive if the defendant admits his guilt for the substantive crime and presents an entrapment defense, because in that instance his or her commission of the crime would not be an issue and motive would be irrelevant. (See People v. Martinez (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 660, 669 [203 Cal.Rptr. 833]; People v. Lee (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 829, 841 [268 Cal.Rptr. 595].)

No Conflict With Other Instructions

Motive, intent, and malice are separate and distinct mental states. Giving a motive instruction does not conflict with intent and malice instructions. (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 503–504 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 45, 40 P.3d 754] [motive describes the reason a person chooses to commit a crime]; People v. Snead (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1098 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 922].) Similarly, a motive instruction that focuses on guilt does not conflict with a special circumstance instruction, which the jury is directed to find true or not true. (People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 178 [246 Cal.Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629] [defendant argued motive to prevent victim from testifying was at core of special circumstance].) A torture murder instruction that requires an intent to cause cruel pain or suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, or any sadistic purpose also does not conflict with the motive instruction. The torture murder instruction does not elevate motive to the status of an element of the crime. It simply makes explicit the treatment of motive as an element of proof in torture murder cases. (People v. Lynn (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 715, 727–728 [206 Cal.Rptr. 181].)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 3470: Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another (Non-Homicide).

Self-defense is a defense to <insert list of pertinent crimes charged>. The defendant is not guilty of (that/those crime[s]) if (he/she) used force against the other person in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:

1 The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name of third party>) was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully];

2 The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3 The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was (imminent danger of bodily injury to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else)/[or] an imminent danger that (he/she/[or] someone else) would be touched unlawfully). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another).

When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.

[The slightest touching can be unlawful if it is done in a rude or angry way. Making contact with another person, including through his or her clothing, is enough. The touching does not have to cause pain or injury of any kind.]

[The defendant’s belief that (he/she/ [or] someone else) was threatened may be reasonable even if (he/she) relied on information that was not true. However, the defendant must actually and reasonably have believed that the information was true.]

[If you find that <insert name of victim> threatened or harmed the defendant [or others] in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]

[If you find that the defendant knew that <insert name of victim> had threatened or harmed others in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]

[Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self-defense measures against that person.]

[If you find that the defendant received a threat from someone else that (he/she) reasonably associated with <insert name of victim>, you may consider that threat in deciding whether the defendant was justified in acting in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another).]

[A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ <insert crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.]

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of <insert crime(s) charged>.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court must instruct on a defense when the defendant requests it and there is substantial evidence supporting the defense. The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on a defense if there is substantial evidence supporting it and either the defendant is relying on it or it is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case. When the court concludes that the defense is supported by substantial evidence and is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case, however, it should ascertain whether defendant wishes instruction on this alternate theory. (People v. Gonzales (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 382, 389–390 [88 Cal.Rptr.2d 111]; People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 157 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094].)

Substantial evidence means evidence of a defense, which, if believed, would be sufficient for a reasonable jury to find a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982–983 [38 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 127 P.3d 40].)

On defense request and when supported by sufficient evidence, the court must instruct that the jury may consider the effect of “antecedent threats and assaults against the defendant on the reasonableness of defendant’s conduct.” (People v. Garvin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 484, 488 [1 Cal.Rptr.3d 774].) The court must also instruct that the jury may consider previous threats or assaults by the aggressor against someone else or threats received by the defendant from a third party that the defendant reasonably associated with the aggressor. (See People v. Pena (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 462, 475 [198 Cal.Rptr. 819]; People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1065, 1068 [56 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 920 P.2d 1337]; see also CALCRIM No. 505, Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another.)

Related Instructions

CALCRIM No. 505, Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another.

CALCRIM Nos. 3471– 3477, Defense Instructions: Defense of Self, Another, Property.

CALCRIM No. 851, Testimony on Intimate Partner Battering and Its Effects: Offered by the Defense.

CALCRIM No. 2514, Possession of Firearm by Person Prohibited by Statute: Self-Defense.

AUTHORITY

Instructional Requirements. People v. Moody (1943) 62 Cal.App.2d 18 [143 P.2d 978]; People v. Myers (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 328, 335, 336 [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 518].

Lawful Resistance. Pen. Code, §§ 692, 693, 694; Civ. Code, § 50; see also People v. Myers (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 328, 335 [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 518].

Burden of Proof. Pen. Code, § 189.5; People v. Banks (1976) 67 Cal.App.3d 379, 383–384 [137 Cal.Rptr. 652].

Elements. People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 [56 Cal.Rptr.2d 142, 921 P.2d 1].

Imminence. People v. Aris (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1187 [264 Cal.Rptr. 167] (overruled on other grounds in People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1089 [56 Cal.Rptr.2d 142, 921 P.2d 1]).

No Duty to Retreat. People v. Hughes (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 487, 494 [237 P.2d 64]; People v. Hatchett (1942) 56 Cal.App.2d 20, 22 [132 P.2d 51].

Temporary Possession of Firearm by Felon in Self-Defense. People v. King (1978) 22 Cal.3d 12, 24 [148 Cal.Rptr. 409, 582 P.2d 1000].

Duty to Retreat Limited to Felon in Possession Cases. People v. Rhodes (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1343–1346 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 226].

Inmate Self-Defense. People v. Saavedra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 561 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 403].

Reasonable Belief. People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 [56 Cal.Rptr.2d 142, 921 P.2d 1]; People v. Clark (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 371, 377 [181 Cal.Rptr. 682].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Defenses, §§ 65, 66, 69, 70.

3 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 73, Defenses and Justifications, §§ 73.11, 73.12 (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 124, Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearings, § 124.04 (Matthew Bender).

RELATED ISSUES

Brandishing Weapon in Defense of Another

The defense of others is a defense to a charge of brandishing a weapon under Penal Code section 417(a)(2). (People v. Kirk (1986) 192 Cal.App.3d Supp. 15, 19 [238 Cal.Rptr. 42].)

Reasonable Person Standard Not Modified by Evidence of Mental Impairment

In People v. Jefferson (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 508, 519 [14 Cal.Rptr.3d 473], the court rejected the argument that the reasonable person standard for self-defense should be the standard of a mentally ill person like the defendant. “The common law does not take account of a person’s mental capacity when determining whether he has acted as the reasonable person would have acted. The law holds ‘the mentally deranged or insane defendant accountable for his negligence as if the person were a normal, prudent person.’ (Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed. 1984) § 32, p. 177.)” (Ibid.; see also Rest.2d Torts, § 283B.)

See also the Related Issues section of CALCRIM No. 505, Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another.

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 3590: Final Instruction on Discharge of Jury.

You have now completed your jury service in this case. On behalf of all the judges of the court, please accept my thanks for your time and effort.

Now that the case is over, you may choose whether or not to discuss the case and your deliberations with anyone.

[I remind you that under California law, you must wait at least 90 days before negotiating or agreeing to accept any payment for information about the case.]

Let me tell you about some rules the law puts in place for your convenience and protection.

The lawyers in this case, the defendant[s], or their representatives may now talk to you about the case, including your deliberations or verdict. Those discussions must occur at a reasonable time and place and with your consent.

Please tell me immediately if anyone unreasonably contacts you without your consent.

Anyone who violates these rules is violating a court order and may be fined.

[I order that the court’s record of personal juror identifying information, including names, addresses, and telephone numbers, be sealed until further order of this court.

If, in the future, the court is asked to decide whether this information will be released, notice will be sent to any juror whose information is involved. You may oppose the release of this information and ask that any hearing on the release be closed to the public. The court will decide whether and under what conditions any information may be disclosed.]

Again, thank you for your service. You are now excused.

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction on discharge of the jury. (Code Civ. Proc., § 206.) The court may give the bracketed portions at its discretion. (Id., § 237.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 237(a)(2) requires the court to seal the personal identifying information of jurors in a criminal case following the recording of the jury’s verdict. Access to the sealed records may be permitted on a showing of good cause in a petition to the court, as provided by subdivisions (b) through (d).

Section 14 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration states that “it is appropriate for the trial judge to thank jurors for their public service, but the judge’s comments should not include praise or criticism of the verdict or the failure to reach a verdict.”

AUTHORITY

Statutory Authority. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 206, 237.

Jury Tampering. Pen. Code, § 116.5.

Secondary Sources

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.05[1], [4][c] (Matthew Bender).

*California Jury Instructions (2013). WestLaw Next. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from http://next.westlaw.com

“My child was facing jail time even after completing over 15 months of drug rehabilitation classes. We were not trying to avoid punishment, but simply letting my child do the time in a safe environment such as home or a charitable organization. The only way to avoid incarceration was to convince t...

Past Client

“I was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. I took a blood test, which the police claimed was 0.15. I retained the Law offices of Wallin & Klarich to represent me. My Wallin & Klarich attorney fought for me, he was aggressive and knowledgeable with the issues surrounding my DUI c...

Past Client

I am writing this to express my sincere thanks to your firm, and specifically your attorney Tim Mulhere for representing me in my criminal case. Your staff is knowledgeable and very efficient at what they do. I was treated with respect and felt like I was a priority at your office. You answered all ...

Past Client

I would highly recommend Matt Wallin to anyone in need of a good criminal defense in Newport Beach. Along with his partners and investigators at the firm Wallin & Klarich, Matt Wallin was able to get my felony case dismissed prior to any charges bei...

Past Client

“I was placed on 3 years probation out of Whittier Court. I needed to terminate probation early and have my case expunged before my work found out about it. I hired an attorney from Wallin & Klarich and he was able to terminate my probation early and my case expunged. Thanks again Wallin &...

Past Client

“Wallin & Klarich attorneys are the best. I was facing two serious felony possession charges, and I received a treatment program only and no prison time. Due to their tremendous efforts, I have been given the chance to turn my life around. Thank you Wallin & Klarich with all my heart.” ...

Past Client

Soheil Levy saved my job and my family. I’m so thankful that he got my felony charges dismissed. Great attorney and totally recommend him.

Michael McCoy

“I sold some furniture, to friend at the time, who later refused to pay the balance owing. I later approached him to discuss the money owed and he started a big fight. I then defended myself. I was arrested for felony assault with a deadly weapon because I won the fight he started when I returned ...

Past Client

“It has been my extreme pleasure to have had Wallin & Klarich law firm represent me in my legal matters. My attorney did a great job keeping me informed on my concerns due too my case. He handled the situation in a professional manner and explained everything thoroughly as the case went on. So...

Past Client

Attorney Matt Wallin, a simple thank you can’t possibly express how much I appreciated your hard work, professionalism and unwavering dedication to my case. I was accused of felony drug possession and driving while on a suspended license. I knew the district attorney was pushing for 3 years state ...

Past Client

I want to thank you for your excellent representation in my son’s minor in possession alcohol case. When I called your office in advise, my son was already facing his third charge for minor in possession and anticipated losing his driver’s licenses for a minimum of one year. Wallin & Klarich...

Past Client

I was going through a child custody dispute and my girlfriend to gain custody of my child, made an allegation that I physically abused her. I hired the law offices of Wallin & Klarich and they assigned an attorney to handle my case. My Wallin & Klarich attorney was able to prove to the distr...

Past Client

“I was charged and convicted of a serious felony years ago. After the conviction, I turned my life around. I found that the conviction on my record was preventing me from seizing opportunities that came my way. I contacted Wallin & Klarich, and met with attorney Rastin Ashtiani. He went ove...

Past Client

“I was arrested for being under the influence of narcotics. My job as a truck driver was on jeopardy. Any jail time could have cost me my job, especially because it was my second case. My attorney was able to resolve the case with no jail. I am very pleased with the result Wallin & Klarich got...

Past Client

“I got a DUI and was on active military duty, I live and travel out of state a lot and therefore needed someone to appear for me and take care of this matter. I hired Wallin & Klarich and Attorney Andrei F. Lapine to handle my case and I didn’t have to be present at all, which saved me tons ...

Past Client

I was involved in a traffic collision and was arrested a few hours later at my house with the officer claiming that I was driving under the influence of alcohol. I had exchanged information with the party involved and over an hour later she decides that she feels I had been drinking and calls the po...

Past Client

“I was arrested on a five year old warrant for a hit and run. The District Attorney charged me with Felony hit and run. I hired Wallin & Klarich to represent me. The initial court appearance they offered my attorney was a misdemeanor with 3 years probation and 30 days jail. She rejected their ...

Past Client

I'm just amazed how Wallin & klarich law firm work. If they say there able to handle it They will. I will recommend this law firm to my family and friends there like family to me. Thank you and God bless.

Mitchell Dominguez

“I was charged with a felony for fraud, facing incarceration and fines. Additionally, my professional license was going to be revoked if I was found guilty. My Wallin & Klarich attorney never gave up on my case and continued to fight for me. He understood the negative impact a conviction would...

Past Client

“I am grateful to the services of Wallin & Klarich. I was facing 60 days in jail for a probation violation. Thanks to Wallin & Klarich I suffered no jail time for my probation violation. I would recommend the law offices of Wallin & Klarich to anyone else in my situation.” -D. C....

Past Client

Great people to work with.

Alyssa Morillo

I was charged with petty theft for allegedly stealing merchandise from a major Orange County California department store. Words cannot describe the level of anxiety that came over me when I was contacted by Loss Prevention and then the Police, who arrested me. My mind was racing about the devastatin...

Past Client

“When I was charged with assault I knew I had serious problems. So I hired the law firm of Wallin & Klarich to represent me. Due to my ongoing medical problems, the case was dragged on for a long time. After several months, my attorney was able to convince the District Attorney’s office to s...

Past Client

“I was charged with three felonies: possession for sales, transportation, and cultivation of marijuana. Due to the persistence of Wallin & Klarich, all charges were dismissed against me. I am grateful to Wallin & Klarich and would recommend them to anyone else who is facing criminal charge...

Past Client

“My son was facing serious felony molestation charges in Juvenile Court. We hired a Wallin & Klarich criminal defense attorney to represent my son. It was a very long process, but my Wallin & Klarich attorney was with us throughout each step of the way. At the conclusion, my son avoided an...

Past Client

I was arrested for domestic violence. My girlfriend was alleging that I pushed her. I hired the Law Offices of Wallin & Klarich for representation. Attorney of Wallin & Klarich was assigned to handle my case. My attorney set the case for trial as the District Attorney did not have any eviden...

Past Client

“I was facing state prison time for possession of methamphetamine. I had a prior strike and needed the representation of a great attorney with experience and knowledge pertaining to my case. Thus, I hired Wallin & Klarich to handle my case. Due to my prior strike, the court was required to dou...

Past Client

Had a great experience working with them. Extremely professional and were always available for any questions i had. Made all my worries go away

Rabih Aboul Hosn

“I definitely appreciate all the services that you’ve provided me in both of my court cases. You guys are worth many times more then what I have paid. All the transactions were precise and concise. I would definitely refer your services to anyone in need. You saved my business and my livelihood....

Past Client

“Thank you for the wonderful job that you have done on behalf. When I was arrested in May of this year, I was very frightened. I was charged with “assault with a deadly weapon” and if convicted, I was looking at not only a strike (as in three strikes and you’re out) but also some serious jai...

Past Client

"I’m writing to thank you for the outstanding legal work you did on my son’s assault case. Bill and I are both extremely pleased with the final outcome and thank you for the significant efforts made in his defense. During my career as a worker’s compensation manager for a large aerospace corpo...

Past Client

“I was arrested for a DUI with injury from a traffic collision. I sought the services of Wallin & Klarich for representation. My Wallin & Klarich attorney was assigned to handle my case. Because this incident involved alcohol and injuries, I was facing a felony charge which could have plac...

Past Client

Thanked you Soheil. Got my case dismissed and very

Lizzy Sotelo

After I was arrested for a felony hit and run with injuries to the other party, I hired the law offices of Wallin & Klarich to represent me. Even though the their parties suffered serious injuries requiring treatment at a hospital, My Wallin & Klarich attorney was able to convince the Distri...

Past Client

After extensive negotiations with the prosecutor, attorney Matt Wallin was able to get the grand theft and petty theft charges against me DISMISSED. I was very relieved and grateful I did not have to report to custody or complete any Shoplifter’s education courses. In addition, attorney Matt Walli...

Past Client

” The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department came to my father’s house in response to an anonymous tip of large amounts of drugs being sold there. They indicated that they were there for a different reason and gained access to my house without consent. Then, they proceed to ask for consent...

Past Client

“I was arrested for a DUI with enhancement penalties. My attorney at Wallin & Klarich was able to get all the enhancements stricken to avoid any mandatory jail. I am impressed.” -W.H...

Past Client

"My wife and I wish to thank you all for your efforts on behalf of our Grandson, William J. Marsh over the last six months. Both Bill and our Granddaughter Deborah have kept us informed of the progress that was being made and reassured us of their confidence in your ability to provide him the best d...

Past Client

I was arrested for allegedly hitting my wife, I had a prior for the same count, and I was facing jail time. I hired Wallin & Klarich to represent me. My attorney, fought the case hard for me, he never once tried to get me to plead guilty. Thanks to his help the case was entirely dismissed! No Ja...

Past Client

I was charged with misdemeanor vandalism and was uncertain about the consequences, since I have never been in trouble with the law before. I contacted the law firm of Wallin & Klarich and my Wallin & Klarich attorney represented me in my case. My Wallin & Klarich attorney was able to ans...

Past Client

Great service, fast, professional with awesome communication. Would definitely use them again.

Aniceto Gonzales Jr

“Thank you so very much for all of your work on my behalf. I was charged with a major felony theft crime. I was certain that I would go to prison for a long time. I received a brochure and letter in the mail from your firm. I felt that the firm would help me in this time of great stress and fea...

Past Client

I was devastated when police served a search warrant at my home and seized my computers and arrested me for a felony sex crime. I found the law offices of Wallin & Klarich on the internet and immediately made an appointment to meet with my attorney. My attorney listened to my side of the story a...

Past Client

I was arrested and charged with a first time DUI. I was facing possible jail time and losing my license. I hired the law offices of Wallin & Klarich to assist me with my case in Riverside Court. They were able to negotiate with the district attorney and get the DUI charge dismissed and reduced t...

Past Client

They were very helpful in answering all of my questions. Highly recommended.

Bobby Parrish

I received a letter in the mail from the District Attorney’s office informing me that I was being charged with sexual battery against a woman I was seeing. Needless to say I was distraught over the entire ordeal. Here I was facing a year in jail and if convicted, I would have to register as a sex ...

Past Client

“My Wallin & Klarich attorney stood up for me and by my side through the entire DUI process. His legal representation through the judicial system got my license back, when the police had not conducted the chemical test of my blood (BAC) properly. Without my Wallin & Klarich attorney I w...

Past Client

“I am writing this letter to tell you about Wallin & Klarich. I was arrested for felony burglary and felony domestic violence. I was told I was facing a minimum of 32 months in state prison. My life was never going to be the same. I realized I needed the help from an attorney expert in crimina...

Past Client

“I was charged with child annoyance, which required registration as a sex offender and possible jail time. I am very thankful for the outcomes my Wallin & Klarich attorney achieved for my case. I am very happy because I do not have to register as a sex offender, I do not have to spend any time...

Past Client

“I was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse, Penal Code Section 261.5 for having sex with a minor. Substantial evidence, including my confession, proved I committed the crime. The indicated sentence from the court if I plead guilty was 60 days in jail, registration as a sex offender, and four ...

Past Client

My son was 17 years old when he admitted to stealing a car and then ran into a house and caused a great deal of damage. He had been living with his mother but the family court file reflected that I had sole physical custody. I had no reason to believe that my son was up to any criminal activity unti...

Past Client

Thank you for the excellent professional service you provided in my case. The attorney was easy to talk too and listened to my concerns and discussed and answered them with straight forward information. I was very thankful for your honesty. I am extremely pleased with the outcome. It really does ...

Past Client

I was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. I took a blood test, which the police claimed was 0.15. I retained the Law offices of Wallin & Klarich to represent me. My attorney fought for me, he was aggressive and knowledgeable with the issues surrounding my DUI case and ultimate...

Past Client

“I had four open DUI’s, one could have been a felony. I am thankful for the services of Wallin & Klarich. I was very happy with the services provided and would recommend the law firm of Wallin & Klarich to anyone else in my position.” -T. B....

Past Client

“I was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). I had never been in trouble before and I wasn’t sure what to do or expect. My lawyer walked me through each step of the process and always kept me informed. The charges reduced to Reckless Driving and I was able to ke...

Past Client

I was arrested and charged with three DUI cases in California all within about one calendar year. I hired the law firm of Wallin & Klarich and Attorney Andrei Lapine handled all of my cases at the DMV. I am happy to say that Mr. Lapine was able to win all three DMV cases for me! Retaining Wallin...

Past Client

“I was arrested for hit and run and possession of cocaine. A family friend was represented by Wallin & Klarich in the past and they urged me to call them to help me. My family called Wallin & Klarich and arranged to have them represent me in court. My attorney appeared on my first court da...

Past Client

“I was arrested with four other individuals. Thanks to the services of Wallin & Klarich I received no jail time and a reduction in the charges I faced. The other individuals all were represented by other attorneys and they all received jail time and had to plea to burglary charges. I am extrem...

Past Client

“I truly feel the need to express my gratitude to and my appreciation for Mr. Matt Wallin, Esq., regarding his expertise, ability and effort on my behalf. Although the doctor had grossly over prescribed me, none the less, I was arrested and charged for California Vehicle Code 23152(a) – DUI D...

Past Client

I was sent a notice to appear on a hit and run case in Riverside. I hired Wallin & Klarich to represent me. A Wallin & Klarich attorney was assigned to handle my case. The WK attorney was able to negotiate my case with the District Attorney and get them to agree to a Civil Compromise which d...

Past Client

I want to thank you for your excellent representation in my probation violation matter. When I called your office for advice, I was facing almost guaranteed jail time on probation violations for my drug possession convection. Due to my attorney’s excellent representation at the probation violation...

Past Client

“I received an OTHER THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE from the Military as a result of a positive urinalysis while I was a reservist. This category of discharge effected my ability to get work and generally acted as a black mark on my record. As a result I hired the law offices of Wallin & Klarich who...

Past Client

Dear Wallin & Klarich Attorney: Wallin and Klarich provided excellent service when my 18-year-old son was arrested for a DUI. Their dedication to insuring that my son received a second chance at being a responsible, productive adult was impressive, to say the least. As a mother, it means the ...

Past Client

“When I came into your office, I was facing a new drug case and a probation violation on my old drug case. The Judge on the old case had told me that I was facing 180 days in county just on probation violation. I knew I would be looking at another 180 days for the new case. Not only would a year i...

Past Client

“I hired Wallin & Klarich to defend me when I was charged with burglary, forgery, and illegal possession of a weapon. I stopped the check transactions of the payments I made to a few different cosmetic doctors, who had been negligent and incompetent in the procedures that I received. I was bas...

Past Client

Hello, I am writing this letter to tell that one of your lawyers did a great job. This was a petty theft case for my husband which was taken care of by Andrei Lapine. The whole case was dismissed. And now my husband doesn’t have any criminal record and we can keep forward with our Canadian I...

Past Client

I was accused of Hit and Run, wherein my vehicle collided with another vehicle, and I did not stop to exchange information with the other driver. I did not realize at the time that this offense could carry a sentence of six months in jail and $1,000.00 fine. I called the offices of Wallin & Klarich ...

Past Client

Attorney Soheil Levy represented me on a 2 days complex hearing for a temporary restraining order case (with petitioner requesting to move it to a permanent one). Attorney Levy came through for me during these tough times, showed professionalism but especially humanity! He knows the law and was able to object and cross-examine like a champion! Attorney Levy WON this case: no TRO, no permanent restraining order and no opposing party’s attorney fees to be paid (>$70K). I recommend him for his skills, knowledge and kind heart! Thank you Attorney for changing my life for the better!

Aurélia Taleb-Ahmed

I would like to thank Gabriel Dorman for the exceptional service provided for my son. He was extremely professional throughout the whole process from our initial conversation in which we discussed our legal problems, and his explanations offering advice and strategy that he thought would provide the best outcomes. Although we were confident in the firm's experience and knowledge, and familiarity with how the court system works, we were always skeptical that the best possible outcome would come to fruition. However, we were extremely thrilled when attorney Dorman called to indicate that all three cases against my son were dismissed. Other than a little delay on receiving evidence of the final disposition of the cases, the whole process was painless and were well worth the fee charged. Thank you very much!

Jeffrey Oller

“I was young and naïve and had sex with a girl that I went to school with. She had a boyfriend and when she was confronted by her parents about where she had been, she told them and the police that I had raped her. I was looking at being in custody for 10 years prior to retaining Wallin & Klarich...

Past Client

They are amazing! They got back to me in minutes regarding any questions that I have and giving legal advice!! Definitely the way to go when looking for trust worthy attorneys!!!

leslie Ramirez

“When I went to your office, I was looking at some serious jail time. I had two prior DUI convictions and was facing my third in front of an especially tough Judge in Whittier. I was told that I would be spending at least 6 months in jail. I am a person with special needs and could not survive tha...

Past Client

Thankful for the help that they provided. Really went beyond what I could hope for!

Joey Gonzalez

I recently retained your law office for my son, Scott Berdequez. From my initial call, I was treated professionally, but as that same time with compassion. The call back from you was immediate. I was assigned a Wallin & Klarich attorney. He too was very professional. He treated my son and me on ...

Past Client

Today I want to acknowledge my attorney as he has changed our lives John-Patric E.Lujan Wee were the luckiest to have you touch Pedro’s file, your good vibes resonated as you had the right words to convince us to trust you on this matter, but more important it was your back and forth negotiating with our family to stay and finish the MOTION to VACATE I believe that your honesty and voice also engage the DA whom you were negotiating as well , it takes a connector like you to tip justice to the people seeking just procedures. Tipping Point is a book that discusses your character you have something special not easily seen or define yet you have it to make that difference and tipping the point to the exact point where it needs to be. In this case you tipped Pedro’s life and our shared family will thrive freely in this country. He will finish his school and continue to support us and the community. All of my kids prayed today and we all came back to discuss what a difference you have made and to trust the justice systems when it is in your hands. Words don’t exist to show gratitude and appreciation please tell your mother and father that they created the best attorney in the world. I see you in your firm thriving in a community that needs leaders and models like you , YOU MAKE A DIFFERENCE !!!!!!!!

ruth Fraire

“I am writing this letter to thank you for your great effort on my behalf. I was charged with a DUI and an accident and to make things worse, with an allegation that I refused a blood alcohol test. Wallin & Klarich worked hard on my case. I was looking at 45 days in the county jail, but my Wal...

Past Client

“I was on my way home at about 1a.m., and a police officer began to follow me. For no apparent reason at all, the officer pulled me over. He said that I was weaving and arrested me for driving under the influence. I later found out that I had a blood alcohol content of 0.10. I hired the Law firm ...

Past Client

Matt Walkin is one of the best attorneys I have come across. He is very professional, straightforward and knowledgeable. He assisted my best friend in obtaining a great deal on such an unfortunate case.I would recommend him to resolve any case.

Lisa Alexander

“I would like to tell you just how much I appreciate all you did for me. I was charged with 3 serious felonies involving Grand Theft and Commercial Burglary. I was facing serious jail time and felony probation for 5 years. I don’t know how you did it but you were able to dismiss all the felonies...

Past Client

I recently had to face being convicted with a second DUI. Anyone would agree that dealing with the court system can be daunting, over whelming and intimidating. Immediately after speaking with lawyers at W&K law about my case, I felt a huge sense of relief . They took care of everything for me and I didn’t even have to show up to court like I did in my previous case . John-Patrick Mullen-Luhan took care of my case , and made sure to always be available for my calls and questions during the stressful time. He was extremely patient , and took his time explaining and re explaining any concerns I had . I truly felt like he and the team at W&K Law care, and that’s the type of support one needs when dealing with situations such as these . They also helped lighten the load of my penalties compared to others I know of in the same situation . If you are looking for a lawyer for DUI , I highly recommend .

Kiersten Hall

“I was charged with a misdemeanor battery. Wallin & Klarich lawyers fought to keep me out of jail. I am glad they did. I am pleased to have been represented by such hard working lawyers. Wallin & Klarich have assembled the best talent of lawyers.” – T.M....

Past Client

“I was arrested for domestic violence. I felt that everyone was against me including the Police and the Prosecutors. They all wanted to send me to jail without even hearing my side of the story. This is all before I retained Wallin & Klarich to represent me. My attorney was the only person tha...

Past Client

“Thank you for your excellent work getting my case dismissed. I really appreciate the time and effort you spent to help me understand the criminal justice process and to explain the possible outcomes. You helped me organize my documents and asked many questions to better understand my case. You...

Past Client

I was charged with 3 felony counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and great bodily injury – all serious and violent strikes. I was facing the possibility of many years in prison. My Wallin & Klarich Attorney believed in my innocence and fought hard for my freedom. After fully discu...

Past Client

They do excellent work, accurate and to the point. I would highly recommend them.

Francisco “Cisco” Ramirez

“Our son was taken into custody for assault with a deadly weapon. He was looking at a maximum exposure of 4 years at the California Youth Authority. Our sons’ lawyer was able to resolve the case for home on probation and some community service. Our son means a lot to our family and we are very t...

Past Client

“I had two warrants for me from nearly 3 years ago. I failed to go through with my drug programs because of numerous personal reasons. I talked to other attorneys and they told me that I was looking at six months of jail time. Then, I came in and talked to Wallin & Klarich, and they told me th...

Past Client

“I would like to tell you that Wallin & Klarich did a great job on my case. I was charged with a Hit and Run. I have never been in trouble in my life and knew I had to face some consequences. I knew that a typical case would land me about a month of jail time. This is something I could not afford ...

Past Client

“I was originally charged with Exhibition of Speed by a Temecula police officer. But then the District Attorney raised the charges to Reckless Driving and I hired Wallin & Klarich to help me. After several meetings with the District Attorney’s Office, Wallin & Klarich was able to have th...

Past Client

My son was charged with driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol; and while this was his first offense, he was charged with a felony DUI with great bodily injury. There was an accident which caused my son’s passenger to get seriously injured as a result of the driving. He had a designated driv...

Past Client

“What a marvelous result! I was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and a high-grade domestic violence charge. The prosecutor initially evaluated the case as a 120 county jail requirement. My attorney at Wallin & Klarich was able to resolve the case for no jail and a lesser charge. Also,...

Past Client

“After interviewing various attorneys and doing some research online, I retained the Law Offices of Wallin & Klarich to represent me. I was charged with a DUI and driving on a suspended license. My Wallin & Klarich attorney went to court and filed a motion to dismiss the case, he was aggre...

Past Client

This place really cares about their clients. Great work with reasonable prices.

Jason

I was charged with 10 counts of Penal Code Section 288(a) for lewd and lascivious acts upon two children under the age of 14 years; I was also charged with 6 counts of Penal Code section 288.5 for continual sexual abuse of two children under the age of 14 years. Because of the nature of these crimes...

Past Client

Wallin and Klarich live up to their word. I don’t know what I would have done without the help of my attorney, Solheil Levy. He was very knowledgeable and helped alleviate a lot of my fears. Everyone I talked to at the firm listened to what I had to say and were very helpful and attentive. They got back to me in a timely manner. Sol understood about how trying some matters can be and was willing to work with me to get the results that I wanted, and that’s exactly what I got.

Nina M

“My uncle was looking at state prison for a repeat felony probation violation. I heard the prosecutor keep saying 16 months state prison. I knew then I needed a good lawyer so I hired Wallin & Klarich. My uncle’s Wallin & Klari...

Past Client

When I found myself suddenly in need of legal representation, I looked everywhere and interviewed 7 different lawyers before I decided on Soheil Levy. One of these 7 lawyers told me that Wallin & Klarich is a good law firm, but “it depends on who you get as a lawyer.” Fortunately for me, I got Soheil Levy. Some of these lawyers used scare tactics and were not forthright, but Soheil was straight-forward and transparent. None of these 7 high-powered, brand named lawyers caught a critical mistake the opposing side made in their written statement. When Mr. Levy caught it, I knew he was smarter than the others. I noticed his ability to quickly capture complex information and extract pertinent parts and distill it for his clients. That quality made me breathe a sigh of relief. I found him to be knowledgeable and confident, and this confidence transferred to me when I was convinced that he knew his stuff. It lifted a great weight off of my shoulders and removed most of the burden off of me. He knows the law well enough to offer optional pathways to take. It can be a very personal decision on the choices to make in a legal situation, and Mr. Levy offered both alternatives along with his most prudent advice, which is what people want when in legal trouble. Importantly, Soheil has been a real comfort in knowing that I could lean on him when I was afraid, and count on him to provide me with the best results. I can imagine how difficult it can be to cater to clients but Soheil Levy has an unusual knack for providing exceptional service and expertise. I really felt like he was a reliable person in whom I could confide all the details of my case. Most of all, he is thorough. In a short amount of time, he assessed my situation and offered me choices so that I understood my situation. I trust him, and if any of my friends have a legal concern, I would point them in Soheil Levy’s direction.

C C

Best firm in Orange County, highly recommend and completely trust them! Garrett and Gabriel took great care of me.

niaz g

I was charged with driving on a suspended license as a misdemeanor, facing up to six months in jail and $1,000 in fines. Then I hired Wallin & Klarich. My attorney knew the courthouse very well when he found out which judge would be hearing my case, he acted quickly. He was able to convince the ...

Past Client

My brother was convicted of second degree murder in Los Angeles County. He was sentenced to 16 years to life in state prison. I hired Stephen Klarich from the law firm of Wallin and Klarich to work on his appeal. Our family was very worried and fearful he would spend the rest of his life in prison. ...

Past Client

“I retained the services of Wallin & Klarich after I was arrested for battery in May 2000 in Pasadena, California. I met with my attorney to discuss my case and found him to be honest, highly professional as well as very personable. He discussed my case with me thoroughly and I left his office...

Past Client

Gregory Balderrama and Alexander Tran handled my case, and they did a terrific job! They started six months ago, and yesterday I received notification from the Attorney General that my many years of grief were finally over. And I didn't even have to appear in court! Thank you guys for all your effort, and I will definitely recommend Walking and Klarich to anyone needing legal expertise. --D.N.

Google Sucks

Past Client

Wallin and Klarich is a great lawfirm. They helped me with a difficult case. They were quick and honest, which I really appreciated, and most importantly they helped me out. Great great firm.

Dulce Cortez

“I knew I was well represented but the NOT GUILTY jury trial verdict in Los Angeles County just reinforced my praise for my lawyer at Wallin & Klarich. We went up against the governments senior criminalist and a 14 years veteran of the CHP who qualified as a Drug Recognition Expert and still w...

Past Client

I was in a state of shock when I was arrested for attempted battery on a police officer and resisting arrest. I knew I was innocent of these crimes and knew that I needed to find the right criminal defense attorney to help me fight my case. I wasn’t comfortable with the first attorney I met with b...

Past Client

Wallin and Klarich boasts an exceptional and highly proactive team, with its legal professionals demonstrating remarkable prowess. For individuals seeking a legal representation committed to vigorous advocacy, engaging the services of WK Law is highly advisable. Distinguished by the principled stance of its founder, Paul Wallin, this firm refrains from making exaggerated commitments, setting it apart from prevalent practices in the legal sphere. It is important to note that WK Law prioritizes integrity and esteem over facile assurances, which accounts for their enduring 40-year presence in the industry.

Carlos Cortez

Stephen Klarich was successful in obtaining an internet exclusion for me (the removal of my picture and personal information from the sex offender website). My name and face was plastered all over the internet for everyone to see causing great havoc in my life I was asked to leave jobs, stores, rest...

Past Client

“I was taken into custody after failing to report to my felony probation officer for an entire year. The judge almost sent me to state prison on my last visit to court, so I was afraid he would keep his promise and send me to state prison. After my attorney met with the Judge and the District Atto...

Past Client

“I was facing four counts of driving on a suspended license, all of which became warrants. In addition I had four traffic violations which were also warrants. Wallin & Klarich was able to have all charges against me dismissed. I didn’t have to pay a fine, community service or go to jail. I a...

Past Client

“After Wallin & Klarich fought a probation violation for me and got it dismissed, I hired Wallin & Klarich again to file a motion to modify my probation. They filed a formal motion with the Court. The District Attorney handling t...

Past Client

“I was arrested for a DUI and had a blood alcohol level of 0.12. My attorney was able to poke holes in the case and get me a reduced charge. I am pleased with my representation by Wallin & Klarich. Wallin & Klarich is a very good law firm.” -A. A....

Past Client

Very happy with the work Wallin and klarich law firm did for me Especially thanks to my attorney Gregory Balderrama Excellent representation very happy with the outstanding results I got in my case It changed my life around thank you so much

Jose Ibarra

Highly recommend. Great, caring people.

49erwill

“I was charged with three criminal counts including grand theft concerning $4,500.00. After several court appearances, my attorney at Wallin & Klarich was able to get the case dismissed and helped me avoid any jail time. I am very pleased with my results.” -O. S....

Past Client

I am writing to talk about our experience with Wallin & Klarich. We are extremely thankful for the outstanding legal representation your firm provided for our son, S.H.E. Last week we were in the Bakersfield Superior Court before Judge Stuart. The District Attorney claimed that SH should be s...

Past Client

I wanted to express my enormous relief and gratitude to Wallin & Klarich. My son was arrested for statutory rape and domestic battery. The allegations were extremely serious. We were concerned that our son would end up in jail and also be branded a “sex offender” for the rest of his life. Wh...

Past Client

This team works hard to get the best possible results. Their diligence and passion are second to none. They answer all your questions and are willing to go the extra mile.

Mark McGuinness II

This law firm has been a God send. They have been helpful guiding me through some recent legal matters I have been traversing. Eric Jones and Soheil Levy were very helpful representing me and getting me to a reasonable outcome. They were always available to answer any questions or concerns I had, and were very honest when presenting my options. I will be keeping them for any further representation I may need in the future. Thanks, Team.

Martin Avelar

“I was charged with a DUI and due to a prior DUI conviction, I faced the harsh reality of serving significant time in county jail. Without a doubt, I was worried and scared. I hired the law firm of Wallin and Klarich and my attorney David R. Cohn quickly got to work in resolving my case with the b...

Past Client

Got a call back the same day I inquired about my case from Mr. Wallin himself who offered me a huge amount of valuable advice. He was extremely kind, knowledgeable, and it was clear he wasn’t trying to sell the firm’s services — he simply wanted to provide the best advice for the best outcome for his clients. Cannot recommend this firm enough.

Griffin Chen

Past Client

“I, Samantha W., was charged with two counts of commercial burglary and one count of forgery. My maximum exposure was three years in jail. Thanks to Wallin & Klarich the charges were reduced to petty theft with no jail time. Instead of going to jail, I was ordered to complete community service...

Past Client

I was charged with driving with a suspended license (Vehicle Code x14601) with two prior convictions. I could have served more then 30 days in jail because of the new crime and my prior record. In addition, I was still on probation for the prior crimes and if I was found guilty or had to plea to a c...

Past Client

“I was arrested on a warrant that stemmed from alleged crimes that had occurred approximately 10 years ago. These charges could have placed me in State Prison for up to 6 years. I hired Wallin & Klarich. Wallin & Klarich argued to the District Attorney that my right to a speedy trial had b...

Past Client

“My child was facing jail time even after completing over 15 months of drug rehabilitation classes. We were not trying to avoid his punishment, but rather we were trying to have our child do the time in a safe environment, such as home or a charitable organization. The only way to avoid incarcerat...

Past Client

When I received a letter from the DA indicating I had been charged with a violation of 653k PC for possession of a switch-blade knife, I turned to friends looking for recommendations and was referred to the Law Offices of Wallin & Klarich. Even though I first contacted them late in the evenin...

Past Client

I was charged with 3 Felony Counts of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Great Bodily Injury – all serious and violent strikes. I was facing the possibility of many years in prison. My attorney David Cohn believed in my innocence and fought hard for my freedom. After fully discussing the ...

Past Client

Sometimes you just have to trust in a voice. I did. And it made all the difference. A few days after I was arrested for my second DUI this past January, I flipped open the Yellow Pages to a section I wouldn’t wish on my most loathsome enemy- law firms touting their DUI expertise. The whole proces...

Past Client

“Within 24 hours upon retaining the Law Office of Wallin & Klarich, my daughter was released from custody, with only probation time to serve. The Law Office of Wallin & Klarich are the best juvenile lawyers in all of San Bernardino County. Don’t take a chance with any other, it will only...

Past Client

Paul is an incredible attorney and wonderful human being that deeply cares about his clients. He is fiercely invested in creating a more just and equitable world through his professionalism and passion for helping others. I am grateful for his guidance, mentorship, and kindness.

Cara Gafner

Past Client

When we needed a law firm to assist our daughter who was facing a serious drug offense, we didn’t know where to turn. Wallin & Klarich provided the professional legal representation and extraordinary guidance that helped my daughter overcome this challenge. I want to take time to thank all the...

Past Client

My Wallin & Klarich attorney: A simple “thank you” can’t possibly express how much I appreciate your hard work, professionalism, and unwavering dedication to my case. I was accused of felony drug possession and driving while on a suspended license. I knew the district attorney was pushi...

Past Client

“I didn’t know what to do when I was accused of burglary and grand theft charges. I was certain that I was facing jail time. I put my faith in Wallin and Klarich due to their years of experience helping people facing similar charges. Thanks to my attorney’s experience and relationship with ...

Past Client

“I would like to tell you that I really appreciate the work my attorney did on my case. My wife had been haunted for years by a very serious crime in her past. She had been arrested for possession of a controlled substance for sale. It was my understanding that the minimum sentence for this charge...

Past Client

“I just wanted to take this opportunity to express how happy and impressed I was with the way you handled my case. Not only did I feel comfortable with your expertise, but also the reputation of your firm exceeded all my expectations. I will definitely refer any of my friends, family or colleagues...

Past Client

“On March 4, 2000, I was arrested for my second DUI in seven years. I tested for a 0.17 Blood alcohol level. I was concerned about having to serve jail time, having to install the breathalizer machine in my car and having an expensive fines and a lengthy 18 months state mandated program. Thanks...

Past Client

Paul Wallin and his law team are exceptional defense attorneys. Their unparalleled expertise and dedication shine through in my case. Navigating legal intricacies with precision, they provide myself with top-tier representation. Trustworthy and effective, they stand out as the best choice for anyone seeking a strong defense. Thank you Paul!

Mike Ballantyne

“I was charged with child abuse, and a misdemeanor complaint was filed against me. I proclaimed my innocence and entered a plea of NOT GULITY. I sought the services of the Wallin & Klarich law firm who willingly took on my case. The firm provided me with the best counsel on their staff. My Wal...

Past Client

“I am writing this letter to thank my attorney from Wallin & Klarich for providing me with outstanding representation when handling my case. I retained Wallin & Klarich in December 2000. My case was a possession charge that I received in 1988. The bail was set at $50,000.00. My attorney of Wallin ...

Past Client

“My son was facing a Petition to send my son to the California Youth Authority for 8 years and 8 months for allegedly violating camp rules by getting into two fights and violating gang terms. Our lawyer at Wallin & Klarich was able to get the case dismissed. No deals, no penalties. We could no...

Past Client

"Thank you so very much for the wonderful work you did for my son. I appriciate all that you are doing to help us. I didnt really get a chance to say thank you when we left court. I hope you know that your truly appriciated." – D.C....

Past Client

I was arrested for a DUI with injury from traffic collision. I sought the services of Wallin & Klarich for representation. Because this accident involved alcohol and injuries, I was facing a felony charge, which could have placed me in state prison. My blood alcohol level came back at 0.06%. My ...

Past Client

“I was very depressed and did not know what to do when when I got arrested again for my third DUI. I called Wallin & Klarich and my attorney was able to successfully resolve my case. My lawyer gave me hope and he was right that, “there is a light at the end of the dark tunnel.” -J. R....

Past Client

“My uncle was looking at state prison for a repeat felony probation violation out of the Compton Superior Court. I heard the prosecutor keep saying 16 months state prison. I knew then I needed a good lawyer so I hired Wallin & Klarich. My uncle’s lawyer was able to get him in a jail alternat...

Past Client

“I would like to thank you for all your help. To say the least, this was a very traumatic period in my life. I was facing two situations in two courts. You were able to explain everything to me and work closely with the courts to get me through this trying period. Initially, I knew I was facing lo...

Past Client

I, Juan Flores, was very pleased with the services I received from WALLIN & KLARICH regarding my recent criminal matter. My Wallin & Klarich Attorney handled the matter with professionalism and his dealings with the district attorney was to my satisfaction. My attorney was able to negotia...

Past Client

I was very pleased with this Law Firm and the service provided to me! They had very reasonable pricing as far as the Retainer cost went, especially for everything that was taken care of on my expungement of past cases. A huge thanks to Patrick and the rest of the Firm! I would absolutely recommend them to anyone.

Chris Fordham

Thank you to the amazing attorney Clinton Chan who supported a loved one during some difficult times. Clinton and the team always went above and beyond answering all questions and concerns. Definitely recommend!

Daisy Serrato

Shiiiii... I can't speak on what the prices are for hiring them, since I was able to get them thru my Union. The only thing I can say is that if I ever get "accused" of speeding again in Cali, this is the first group of lawyers I'm calling to take care of my problem. Crazy how a "supposed" 72 in a 55 speeding ticket went away and it's all because of you guys. Once again thank you.

Carlos Manzanera

I was charged with felony sexual battery. I was facing serious prison time, life long sex offender registration, and the loss of my career. With so much on the line, I put my entire future in the hands of Wallin and Klarich. From day one my attorney fought long and tirelessly on my behalf in order t...

Past Client

Great attorneys! They take a personal approach to cases and really listen to client concerns. They will fight for you until the very end of your case. Could not recommend them enough!

Yareth Sarmiento

“I was charged with a domestic violence case and was also facing a probation violation. My attorney at Wallin & Klarich was able to get my case dismissed. I am very pleased with my results.” -N.Q....

Past Client

I was stopped for driving without a license. I had priors of the same charge. I knew it was highly possible I was facing jail time. I hired Wallin & Klarich to handle my case. My attorney went to court and fought for me. He was able to get me no jail time at all. My Wallin & Klarich attorney...

Past Client

“My husband and I received a shock recently when our son was arrested for starting a fire at a state park. But our shock turned into horror when he was charged with felony arson. We immediately hired the Law Firm of Wallin & Klarich. After a review of the evidence, Wallin & Klarich had a s...

Past Client

“I had a public defender when I started my case. The public defender said I was looking at one year or year and a half jail. I was also looking at substantial fines. My attorney of Wallin & Klarich helped me avoid that offer and saved me substantial money in fines. I will recommend him to all ...

Past Client

I was arrested and charged with felony grand theft and embezzlement. I was caught stealing over $3,000 in cash from my employer. I was referred to Attorney Matt Wallin of Wallin & Klarich. After meeting with him, my family and I understood the charges against me, the potential consequences, and ...

Past Client

Not a client, but I know many people (personally) who work at WK and I can easily say that they all TRULY care about their clients and operate with their best interests in mind. I've seen some of the negative reviews on here (many of them blatantly fake) and, from an unbiased perspective who's heard both sides of the story, I can full-heartedly say that I have yet to see a single review that is justified. As with any business, there may be accounting errors at times or other administrative errors, but they are the exception, not the rule. As a rule, Wallin and Klarich is full of hard working, passionate, intelligent people who truly care about their clients and the work they do. Even when they aren't working, they are talking about law and ways to better their clients. I can't and won't speak on any other firms' behalf, but as for WK, they have great workers and produce great outcomes. I do and will continue to trust them. If I ever have any legal issues (knock on wood) they will 100% be the firm representing me.

Austin Greenly

I was on my way home from the desert at dusk on a two lane highway when a car approached from the other direction. The other car was swerving onto my side of the road and then straightened out. As the car got very close to me it swerved onto my side of the road again. At the last moment, I turned of...

Past Client

My son was facing serious felony molestation charges in Juvenile Court. We hired a criminal defense attorney of the law firm of Wallin & Klarich to represent my son. It was a very long process, but my Wallin & Klarich attorney was with us throughout each step of the way. At the conclusion, m...

Past Client

Wallin & Klarich aren't just great defense attorneys, they are a team of defense experts who not only understand your case and what your going through, they understand what your family and loved ones go through. I trust Stephen Klarich and his team 1000%, you should too. Don't settle for anythingless than the best, trust me, you can't afford to.

Paul S

“I was charged with driving under the influence; my blood alcohol level was a 0.19, which is over twice the legal limit. I hired the LAW OFFICES OF Wallin & Klarich to defend me in the court matter and for the DMV hearing. I learned that while the court could have restricted my license for 90 ...

Past Client

“Recently I used the services of attorneys at the law firm of Wallin & Klarich. I was referred to this law firm by CTA after my arrest. A student alleged that I had assaulted him and I was subsequently arrested. In my initial consultation with Mr. Klarich the allegations were discussed and I r...

Past Client

“I was facing three serious drug charges out of Whittier. The most aggravating about my situation was that I had previously been given diversion on an earlier case. Thus, I was facing a full year in county jail. Wallin & Klarich was able to work out a deal to get me into another diversion prog...

Past Client

“Prior to retaining the services of Wallin & Klarich, I was convicted of statutory rape, which subjected me to automatic deportation. I retained the services of Wallin & Klarich to set aside conviction and to avoid deportation. The attorneys of Wallin & Klarich moved aggressively to pr...

Past Client

“I was involved in a domestic incident with my girlfriend, which included a charge of child endangerment. I hired the offices of Wallin & Klarich to represent me. In the very first pre-trial the lawyers of Wallin & Klarich presented my case to the District Attorney and the Judge and the ca...

Past Client

I am submitting this letter and the enclosed gift as a token of gratitude to my son’s attorney [from Wallin & Klarich]. My son was charged with two counts of driving under the influence and reckless driving. He was facing at least 60 days in the Orange County Juvenile Detention Facility. After thr...

Past Client

Great service satisfied with the result of my case were able to help me out I did not get no point against my license

Fernando Navarro

I am grateful for the services provided by Wallin & Klarich and my attorney at this firm. I would recommend them to anyone in my situation. -A.G....

Past Client

“I was charged with DUI with a refusal allegation and a vandalism charge. I was facing mandatory jail time. I could have easily been sent to county jail for 45 days. Wallin & Klarich was able to work with the prosecutors and expose the weaknesses of their case. This allowed them to plea bargai...

Past Client

“I was arrested for a DUI. I was concerned because the DUI involved an accident with my car being totaled. I was worried about jail so I hired Wallin & Klarich. Wallin & Klarich was able to keep me out of jail and was able to resolve my case for a lesser charge. I received a nominal fine a...

Past Client

“I was facing charges of domestic violence. A conviction for domestic violence would ruin my chances of becoming a United States Citizen. I contacted the law offices of Wallin & Klarich and they quickly contacted the prosecutor’s office. Wallin & Klarich arranged a pre-filing hearing wit...

Past Client

Excellent and very responsive firm. I worked with Soheil Levy from Wallin and Klarich, he is a very diligent lawyer. He did everything in his power so that my case was not filed. He's always available during calls whenever needed. He explained to me everything I needed to know regarding my situation and continues to monitor my case. I highly appreciate that Mr. Soheil is a straightforward attorney and completely understands what he is doing.

julio cabrera

I was pleased with the time, efficiency and the communication in which they handled my cases. They took their time in explaining the process case by case. Finally, they got the job done with expunging the cases I needed. Alex took most of the ownership with communicating back to me and I appreciate it so much.

Henry Diaz

My son was charged with two felonies, (1) felony drug charge (possession for sale) and (2) felony weapon charge (possession of an assault weapon). Based on the severity of the charges and my son’s extensive criminal record, it appeared an extended state prison sentence was inevitable. My son was f...

Past Client

Here is why I STRONGLY recommend you use the law firm of Wallin & Klarich (wklaw.com) if you need any kind of criminal defense. I recently was accused by a group that matters to me of having done something illegal. I hadn’t done anything illegal, but I needed a reputable lawyer to put this on paper. I called 5 law firms that specialize in the relevant area of law, and each promised to have a lawyer call me back that day. Only one called me back, and the attorney told me that my situation (needing a legal opinion) was to “small” for his firm to deal with. Then I called Wallin & Klarich. Paul Wallin, co-founder and partner, IMMEDIATELY hopped onto the call. He understood the kind of legal opinion letter I needed and quoted me a rate I felt was very fair. And even though they routinely take on big cases, Paul never made me feel like my situation was too unimportant to deal with. Just one day later I got their EXCELLENT first draft of a letter from another attorney in the firm, Gregory Balderrama. I’m a professional writer so I know great writing like Gregory's when I see it. There were a few emails back and forth to tweak the letter and then it was finished. Paul and Gregory treated me as if I was their closest friend in need of help. If you want this kind of swift, expert, and attentive help, I can’t recommend the professionals at Wallin & Klarich strongly enough.

Jason Rappaport

“I was arrested for possession of Methamphetamine while on probation. The maximum sentence was four years in prison and a minimum sentence of two years eight months in prison. The attorneys of Wallin & Klarich moved aggressively to present my case to the District Attorney and Judge. I received...

Past Client

“I was arrested and charged with petty theft. I was facing up to 6 months in the county jail. A representative from the store indicated that they had me on video attempting to steal over $250.00 worth of merchandise. I had never been in trouble before and I immediately hired the Law Firm of Wallin...

Past Client

“I was charged with violating California Penal Code Section 261.5 (b) – Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Person Under 18 (Statutory Rape). Matthew Wallin explained to me that I was facing a maximum of up to one-year in county jail. Matthew Wallin is a trustworthy, understanding, hardworking an...

Past Client

“I had a 0.25 Blood alcohol level test result. Yet my attorney was able to show that I had a rising blood alcohol level and was able to get the enhancement charged dismissed. Terrific result!” -C. R....

Past Client

I have a commercial drivers license. I got a ticket for speeding and incorrect lane change they went to court. Dropped it to a parking nonmoving violation. Feel great i chose wallin & klarich

Jeffrey Mendoza

“My son was facing serious felony molestation charges in Juvenile Court. We hired a criminal defense attorney of the law firm of Wallin & Klarich to represent my son. It was a very long process, but my Wallin & Klarich attorney was with us throughout each step of the way. At the conclusion...

Past Client

“I am writing to thank you for all you’ve done to help me. I was charged with possession for sale. To make matters worse, I had a prior conviction of the same offense. My old lawyer just kept asking for more money, and the best he could do for me was was to reduce my sentence to 4 years in state...

Past Client

I was arrested and charged with several felony counts of fraud, forgery, and identity theft. I had been incarcerated for over two months, and needed a qualified attorney to help me out of my horrible situation. I was facing several years in prison and did not know when or if I was going to be releas...

Past Client

Excellent Results

Duke Le

“I have a neighbor who was harassing me, coming onto my property without permission and riding his bicycle on my property. I was ultimately charged with assault with a deadly weapon but the District Attorney’s office did not file charges until almost two years later. I hired Wallin & Klarich...

Past Client

Got my tickets dismissed i love them thank you so much

Sebastian Turner

On behalf of myself and family, I would like to extend my gratitude, appreciation and thanks to Wallin & Klarich and its staff, for the hard work and diligence in obtaining a positive outcome to my appeal. -N.G....

Past Client

“I was charged with driving under the influence when driving from Las Vegas to California. I am a lieutenant in the Navy and was immediately sent to sea; however, prior to leaving I hired the law firm of Wallin & Klarich. While at sea, my attorney and I communicated from email aboard my ship a...

Past Client

I am writing to let you know how impressed I was with the employees of Wallin & Klarich. From my initial phone call to your law firm, throughout both the civil and criminal trials, and a follow-up call to see how my son was doing after the verdict, your employees remained consistent in her abili...

Past Client

They beat me ticket 76 in 55 for a semi is serious business. They beat it no points . I’d work with them again very professional and no back and forth.

Dominic Carter

I would like to sincerely thank you for helping me with obtaining my Certificate of Rehabilitation. I now realize the importance of obtaining a law firm that has years of experience in criminal law. The way the package was organized and presented to the presiding judge was very impressive to me. ...

Past Client

We had a great experience working with Matthew Wallin. We were going through a difficult time and Matthew was able to come in and calm us down and helped us by clearly answering all of our questions. He was very helpful and patient through the entire process. Matthew is a great attorney and we were glad he was on our side. His knowledge of the different parts of the law was very comprehensive and he was able to put across his arguments in a very articulate manner at the hearing. Overall Matthew helped us navigate this experience in a very dependable way and we would recommend Matthew with many more than the 5 stars allowed.

S D

“I was accused of felony domestic violence with injury and faced up to three years in state prison. The attorneys of Wallin & Klarich moved aggressively to present my case in the best light to the court and negotiate with the District Attorney. In the end my felony domestic violence charge was...

Past Client

“On July 8, 2000 I was arrested for driving with a blood alcohol of 0.18. My lawyer at Wallin & Klarich was able to show a title 17 violation that helped me resolve the case for a lesser charge. I am very pleased with my legal representation by Wallin & Klarich.” -J. T....

Past Client

“After being caught in an undercover sting operation, I was charged with four criminal counts including: providing liquor to a minor, possession of alcohol while under 21, possession of open container while driving, and unlawful use of an identification card. I was 18 years old at the time. These ...

Past Client

Here is my story. One day I come home and go to check the mail and to my surprise I have a letter from the DA saying I am being charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, stemming from an accidental overdose 16 months ago. To top it off it stated that I had to appear in court 2 days l...

Past Client

“I plead guilty to possession of a controlled substance and received the PC 1000 drug program. However, I had a relapse and because I had been terminated from the program once before, the Judge was going to sentence me to 90 days in custody. Going to jail would have caused extreme hardship on my f...

Past Client

“I John B. was accused of a misdemeanor charge of assault and battery charges. The attorneys of Wallin & Klarich presented my case in the best light to the court and negotiate with the District Attorney. In the end my charges were DISMISSED. Without the expert advice and guidance of Wallin &am...

Past Client

I was really upset when I was charged with possession for sales of drugs, cultivation and possession of more than $25,000 in drug proceeds. Attorney David E. Wohl worked tirelessly on my case from the day he got it. In the end I will end up with nothing more than a misdemeanor on my record—probati...

Past Client

Last year on Mother’s day I was arrested and subsequently charged with a violation of Penal Code 12020(a), possession of a weapon which was a collapsible baton. I turned to the Law Offices of Wallin & Klarich. I met with the attorney, and hired Wallin & Klarich because they appeared to ...

Past Client

“I had a 0.14 BAC through a blood test. My lawyer at Wallin & Klarich was able to get me reduced charges by showing a chain of custody problems. Needless to say I am very pleased with my representation by Wallin & Klarich. I will recommend them to all my friends.” -G. B. J....

Past Client

“I want to say that I am pleased to have been represented by Wallin & Klarich. My attorney represented me in a DUI during a very difficulty time for me. He managed to get my refusal allegations stricken to help me avoid jail. For that I am pleased and will recommend Wallin & Klarich to my ...

Past Client

I was arrested for a DUI. I was facing a possible suspension of my license and possible jail time. I hired Wallin and Klarich to represent for the court proceedings and also the DMV hearing regarding my license. An attorney was assigned to handle my case. She has conducted many hearings with the DMV...

Past Client

I was arrested for driving under the influence and being under the influence of a controlled substance. I went into court the first day and the District Attorney’s Office offered 120 days in Orange County Jail. Then I hired [a Wallin & Klarich attorney]. After one appearance, [he] reduced the ...

Past Client

Soheil Levy is a great lawyer. He was reassuring and confident, which put me at ease. He had charges against me dismissed in a city attorney meeting that lasted less than fifteen minutes and made the whole process very easy and relatively painless, asking basically as little of me as possible throughout. I felt like I was well taken care of and there are no charges against me to show for it :)

rhana tabrizi

“I was arrested for misdemeanor petty theft. I hired Wallin and Klarich to represent me. Due to my attorney’s reputation in the court, she was able to explain to the District Attorney that I made a mistake and have never done anything like this before and would never do this in the future. A mis...

Past Client

Alexander Tran assistant was amazing to work with . He was always helpful and informative with questions pertaining to my case . Mr Klarich is a very experienced and knowledgeable attorney. Would highly recommend this law firm for legal needs .

Juan Guerrero

“I hired the law firm of Wallin & Klarich to seek a Governor’s Pardon in California. I was convicted many years ago of a felony and very much wanted to clean my record. I wanted to obtain my right to possess a firearm, which was taken away because of the felony conviction. I am happy to say ...

Past Client

Alex & Gregory an the whole team at W&L are the truth! These are excactly the type of individuals you would want fighting for you …they did such an amazing job wit my case.. Always keeping me in the loop, answering any questions i had with wisdom and confidence..im so glad an greatful i was able to hv them represent me! Some of the best lawyers in california folks look no further i promise you will not regret it!! Thankx again team !

Cameron Daniel

“The police arrested me for possession of 4 ounces of heroin and for other illegal drug violations. The District Attorney charged me with possession and transportation of heroin for the purpose of sale and for possession of Cocaine for the purpose of sale as well. I was facing a minimum of three y...

Past Client

“I was arrested for theft totaling more than $400.00. A theft conviction on my record after 17 years of employment could have affected my future employment opportunities. My lawyer was able to resolve my case for a trespass. I am very pleased with my representation by my lawyer at Wallin & Kla...

Past Client

“I came into Wallin & Klarich because my other attorney told me I was facing 60 days of mandatory jail time. I have three kids and a house mortgage, I could not handle going away for that long. Wallin & Klarich was able to negotiate with the prosecutors and get me NO JAIL TIME whatsoever. ...

Past Client

My experience with Attorney John Patrick-Lujan was excellent. My case was dismissed by the judge. Throughout this one year ordeal, Mr. Patrick Lujan listened to me intently and navigated the case to the end professionally. I am very satisfied with the results and will recommend Mr. Lujan.

Guizhen Lei

“Wow! What a result! On April 5, 2000 I was arrested for possession of a controlled substance and a second time DUI. I was facing the possibility of having to register as a narcotics offender, to serve jail time, to complete a lengthy 18-month alcohol program, and to install a breathalyzer device ...

Past Client

“I was arrested and charged with various felony drug crimes and one count of disorderly conduct. I was facing the possibility of going to prison. Therefore, after searching for law firms with experience in drug cases, I hired Wallin & Klarich to assist me with my case. My attorney was able to ...

Past Client

I was facing criminal charges for driving under the influence of drugs. I believed in my innocence on the charges and wanted to fight my case even if I had to face jail time. I originally hired another law firm, but they tried to convince me to plead guilty, so I dropped them. Therfore, I sought ...

Past Client

I had two serious charges filed against me. I hired Wallin & Klarich and Mr.Vargas my lawyer fought diligently and got my charges reduced to informal probation. My case didn’t even go to trail. I was impressed by how Wallin and Klarich handled my case and more than satisfied with my outcome. I highly recommend hiring Wallin and Klarich law corp if ever in need of legal representation thanks Wallin & Klarich!

gabriel cruz

“I had an argument with my neighbor after she yelled at my son for going into her yard to retrieve his ball. She called the police and advised them that I had assaulted her. I hired Wallin & Klarich to represent me, as I proclaimed my innocence. My attorney at Wallin & Klarich handled my c...

Past Client

Mr. Lujan handled my case and got it dismissed. Before attaining Mr. Lujan I was being represented by another attorney from another firm who offered me a horrible deal from the DA. Mr. Lujan fought for a better out come that completely changed my future I'm so glad that Mr. Lujan handled my case. He was very professional, understanding, and made himself available throughout the whole process. I'm so greatful for his hard work and honesty. I would highly recommend him to anyone that is looking for an attorney that provides the results you want.

Dakota Mendoza

“Our son was looking at some serious time. He was looking at the California Youth Authority for escaping camp and for picking up a new offense. His lawyer at Wallin & Klarich was able to keep him from going to the CYA. He was also able to get his juvenile case terminated. We could not have ask...

Past Client

Attorney Gabriel Dorman, I cannot say enough about in this small space to adequately express my gratitude and appreciation. If you want an attorney that is going to tell you everything you want to hear then he is probably not the attorney to choose, however if you want an attorney that will advise you truthfully according to the law, he will defend you and your rights within the law with heart. In the end he looked me in the eyes and said “I am so happy for you” and that told me everything to know about this man. He is a good attorney, and he cares!

J Line (Jerry)

“I was very pleased with my legal representation. I was charged with driving under the influence and for damaging prison property. My attorney got me a nonalcoholic related charge. I did not have to do the alcohol classes. He also got me a NOT GUILTY finding by way of a Court Trial on the allegati...

Past Client

“I had a bench warrant out for my arrest and was charged with driving under the influence and false impersonation. My Wallin & Klarich attorney immediately recalled the bench warrant and presented my case in the best light to the District Attorney’s Office. The result was a complete dismissa...

Past Client

Matthew Wallin helped me navigate my case. He answered all of my emails and questions In a timely manner. I would highly recommend Matthew to any of my family and friends.

Pandra Beecroft

“One day out of the blue I was arrested for a crime. I was accused of being a fugitive from justice. The District Attorneys office said that I fled another state to avoid prosecution for a crime I supposedly committed there. The governor of that state was asking California to extradite me. When I ...

Past Client

Great service and representation. I was updated periodically and any questions I had were answered in a timely manner. I was always kept in the loop and the attorney was always available. I appreciated the attention to detail and making me feel at ease during the process. The professionalism and commitment to their clients is stellar. Thank you again for your help and expertise!

David Hollie

I have found myself very satisfied with attorney Soheil Levy from this office. I came here specifically because of his attentiveness and professionalism. Overall the office and assistant's were polite as well and helpful. He has on multiple occasions made complex and at times confusing legal situations much more understandable with a comforting tone. I hold absolutely no reservation in giving Soheil Levy and this law firm my highest possible recommendation.

Salvador Torres

“I was under 21 years old and was cited for driving under the influence of alcohol. I knew what I did was wrong, but I did not know the full consequence of my actions. I learned that if either the DMV or the court find a person under 21 years of age driving with a blood alcohol level over 0.08% th...

Past Client

“I am very pleased that I hired Wallin & Klarich to represent me and help me dismiss the charges I was facing for possession of a concealed weapon. My attorney filed a motion to get the case dismissed and the Judge at the Airport Court granted the motion. I am relieved that the case has been d...

Past Client

So since day one I had no idea what would happen and was lost , I called multiple lawyers and everyone seemed allot more interested in making sure I had the money to pay rather than actually giving me any type of feedback on the case I had . Lucky for me I found wallin & klarich who actually took the time to explain things to me and how things work in the courts . They assigned SOHEIL LEVY to my case who to me is a blessing sent from a higher power. Originally if I had no kids I would have not had any issues doing jail time for the firearm charges I was fighting but since I’m a father to 6 wonderful kids I couldn’t afford to leave them alone while I took a vacation behind bars, I couldn’t run the risk of getting locked up and my kids going homeless or hungry cause of my stupid mistake. A true blessing SOHEIL LEVY was able to get me a great outcome by getting me a no jail and 35 days of community service sentence. Thank you for your hard work my kids and I truly appreciate what you did for me.

2A_CRYPTO

“I was charged with multiple felony counts. I was concerned about going to jail on my case. My attorney fought really hard to get me a good result. I was exposed to 4 years 8 months state prison. My lawyer was able to convince both the prosecutor and the Superior Court Judge to allow me to do a ja...

Past Client

“I am very pleased with my legal representation by Wallin & Klarich. I was facing jail time because of having a high blood alcohol level and for having a car accident. I meant no harm. Wallin & Klarich was able to keep me out of jail and get me the help. I would recommend Wallin & Klarich to anyon...

Past Client

“I was charged with corporal injury to a child. I hired Wallin & Klarich to represent me, and my attorney from Wallin & Klarich got all charges against me dismissed because the district attorney violated my right to a speedy trial. I would recommend Wallin & Klarich to anyone who feels...

Past Client

“I would like to take this time to thank you for the tremendous help I received from your law firm. Your professionalism and diligence during the process of my case changed my perspective about lawyers’ ethics. I realize how much you truly care for your clients, as well as how intensely you figh...

Past Client

I definitely recommend this law office , they work really hard for you case they are very professional, and get the results fast. I'm personally thank Attorney Klarich and Attorney Gregory for all the good work they did for me. Se los recomiendo mucho ...Gracias

Sixto villalva

“I am very, very pleased with my resolution of my case by Wallin & Klarich. My first lawyer, the public defender, told me to take a 60 day jail offer and said it was only going to get worse if I did not take it. I hired Wallin & Klarich and they aggressively represented me. The result was ...

Past Client

Thank you so very much for taking on my case and for doing such an incredible job reducing the felony burglary charge to a misdemeanor! My experience with your professional representation could not have gone any better, and I truly appreciate all the time and effort you put into this case. I will de...

Past Client

“My son was charged with several misdemeanor counts and for violating probations for a domestic violence case. He was looking at one year in jail but thanks to my lawyer at Wallin & Klarich he was able to get credited time served and released back to my home where he belongs. This is a great r...

Past Client

“I would like to just thank your incredible effort on my behalf. When I was wrongfully charged with Domestic Violence, I did not know where to turn. All I knew was that the police were going to take her side, simply because of my prior conviction when I was young. I had changed so much since that ...

Past Client

“My husband was arrested for a DUI for having a 0.15 BAC. He was being charged with a 2nd time DUI offense, looking at mandatory jail, a lengthy 18-month alcohol program and stiff fines. His lawyer George Kita filed a MOTION TO SUPRESS all evidence seized as a result of an ILLEGAL TRAFFIC STOP. He...

Past Client

I was accused of a misdemeanor because of the unauthorized possession of a syringe that contained Methamphetamine. Due to my prior convictions, which caused me to go to State Prison, I was ineligible for any drug programs. I was facing about 90 days or more of jail time. The attorneys of Wallin &a...

Past Client

“I was arrested for a DUI warrant and I hired Wallin & Klarich to represent me. The District Attorney wanted to send me to State Prison for up to 3 years. After Wallin & Klarich looked at all the police reports and paperwork in my file, they found that this warrant was over 2 years old. Th...

Past Client

My ticket was dismissed thanks to Brian Okakbayash!! He was patient with all my questions. He was helpful and always responded quickly to my calls and e-mails. I got a traffic ticket for allegedly going 109 in a 65mph zone! Definetly would hire again!! Worth every penny!! Thank you Brian Okayabashi!!!

Sheree (2nd 2 No 1)

"My husband and I received a shock recently when our son was arrested for starting a fire at a state park. But our shock turned into horror when he was charged with felony arson. We immediately hired the Law Firm of Wallin & Klarich. After a review of the evidence, Wallin & Klarich had a ser...

Past Client

“I was arrested for a Misdemeanor DUI in October 1999. I contacted Wallin & Klarich for representation. A Wallin & Klarich attorney was assigned to handle my case. My case was not filed until May of 2000. My Wallin & Klarich attorney was informed that in addition to the misdemeanor cha...

Past Client

“I had a $30,000 arrest warrant for a DUI probation violation, and I was looking at the possibility of jail. Wallin & Klarich was able to recall the warrant and reinstate my probation without jail. What a relief. Wallin & Klarich was a good investment. Thank you for keeping me out of jail....

Past Client

“Prior to retaining the services of Wallin & Klarich, I was convicted of statutory rape, which subjected me to automatic deportation. I retained the services of Wallin & Klarich to appeal my conviction in order to avoid deportation. The attorneys of Wallin & Klarich moved aggressively ...

Past Client

“Wallin & Klarich got my case dismissed! I was backing out of my parking spot and accidentally bumped another vehicle. I left my information for the other vehicle’s owner to contact me. Instead, I was contacted by the City Attorney’s Office telling me that I was charged with hit and run and th...

Past Client

I was recommended Wallin and Klarich from Teamsters through work after receiving my first D.u.i. They were very professional and handled everything for me even the Dmv process. My lawyer was John-Patrick E. Mullen-Lujan and he was very helpful with understanding what the court was offering and the trial process making it as less stressful as possible. With John-Patrick E. Mullen-Lujan advising I made the decision to go to trial and my case was dismissed.

Anthony Varelas

“I was on probation for DUI and I was arrested for a second DUI. On the following night I was arrested again for DUI, which would make it my third DUI. I hired Wallin & Klarich to handle my cases. Because of my prior DUI and my blood alcohol level, I was facing a mandatory minimum jail sentence of...

Past Client

My attorney Soheil Levy appeared to my court on time. Before the court started he had a brief meeting with my wife and me regarding my case. He was really attentive to my case, really kind and 100% on it. I really recommend his service. I also want to thank Jackline Iniguez for her help, I really appreciate both of them. And of course he won my case.

Yolanda Torres

“I am writing this letter to praise your employee. What an incredible asset he is to your firm. As you know my son Skyler was being tried on the charge of penal code 288(a). This is a very sensitive charge and quite uncomfortable for a parent. I had interviewed other attorneys and was becoming ver...

Past Client

Being charged with felony vandalism was very overwhelming at first. I knew that if convicted the consequences would be severe. I was not sure where to turn or what to do. Thankfully, I contacted the experienced criminal defense firm of Wallin & Klarich and met with my Wallin & Klarich attorn...

Past Client

I highly recommend Wallin and Klarich for their exceptional legal expertise and unwavering support throughout my case. The attorneys demonstrated a deep understanding of laws, providing insightful guidance at every step. Their commitment to my case, coupled with clear communication, resulted in a favorable outcome. I am immensely grateful for their professionalism and would trust them with any legal matter.

Blair London

“I was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and hired Wallin & Klarich. I knew that I was intoxicated, but I also knew that my rights had been violated and that officers did not see me drive even though others had. My attorney met with me on several occasions to strategize how w...

Past Client

“I was arrested and charged with six felony counts and facing 34 years in state prison because of sexual child abuse accusations. A rape conviction would have required me to register as a sex offender for a lifetime. My lawyer fought the case from start to finish. During the course of my case, he ...

Past Client

I had a horrible history of domestic violence. When I was young, I was quick to get angry and was unable to control myself. I was convicted of Felony domestic violence 7 years ago. I served a year in jail and did my anger management counseling for 18 months. I really learned to manage my temper and ...

Past Client

“I received notice that I was facing a violation of probation out of Riverside Court and was facing up to 600 plus days in jail. I contacted Wallin & Klarich and hired their services. The Judge wanted to take me into custody that day. My attorney was able to keep me out on bail while she was h...

Past Client

“I was charged with spousal abuse against my girlfriend. Because I was on parole I faced a parole violation as well as up to one year in jail. Thanks to the services of Mrs. Garcia at Wallin & Klarich the charges were dismissed against me. I would recommend Wallin & Klarich to anyone in a ...

Past Client

My experience with this lawfirm has been a 100000/10! Truly an amazing team. The attorneys really care and listen.

benjamin cruz

Past Client

Sol did a terrific job.

Brad Wind

I WAS ACCUSED OF Rape of a child under 12 years of age, sodomy of a child less than 12 years of age and indecent acts with a child under 12 years of age. I faced a maximum of life imprisonment if convicted of these crimes. I was referred to the law firm of Wallin & Klarich, a firm I was told had...

Past Client

SCHEDULE YOUR free consultation

If you or a loved one have been accused of a crime, this is the time to contact us.