People v. Hartsch

In People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, the California Supreme Court concluded there was no prejudicial error in the trial court's refusal to give third party culpability instructions similar to those defendant requested in this case. (Id. at p. 504.) The Supreme Court said the requested pinpoint instructions "add little to the standard instruction on reasonable doubt" and "their omission is not prejudicial because the reasonable doubt instructions give defendants ample opportunity to impress upon the jury that evidence of another party's liability must be considered in weighing whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof." (Ibid.) "It is hardly a difficult concept for the jury to grasp that acquittal is required if there is reasonable doubt as to whether someone else committed the charged crimes." (Ibid.)