People v. Kegler

In People v. Kegler (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 72, the defendant submitted a similar pinpoint instruction on third party culpability, which the trial court refused to give. (Id. at p. 79.) Relevant portions of the instruction read as follows: "The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the person who committed the offense with which he is charged. In this regard, you are instructed that it is not necessary for the defendant to prove that another person may have committed the crime, nor is it the burden of the defendant to prove his innocence. . . ." (Kegler, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 79, fn. 1.) The defendant was convicted of the robbery of two men and the murder and robbery of a third man. (Id. at p. 77.) All of the eyewitnesses agreed that a man driving a gray Cadillac robbed the two men at 12:30 p.m. and murdered the third man nearby at approximately 1:30 p.m. The primary issue at trial was the identity of the person who murdered and robbed the third man. Most of the eyewitnesses expressed some uncertainty in identifying the defendant as the murderer. Their description of the suspect also fit that of the owner of a gray Cadillac, who testified he lent it to the defendant in exchange for cocaine. One of the witnesses initially identified the owner of the Cadillac as the murderer. Personal items from the victims were found in the Cadillac. (Id. at p. 78.) The defendant presented alibi evidence from his friend and his girlfriend that he was with them after 12:30 p.m. (Id. at p. 79.) On appeal, the Kegler court affirmed the trial court's ruling and found the "requested instruction was inapposite because appellant did not present sufficient evidence of third party culpability linking any particular third person to actual perpetration of the crime." (Kegler, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 80.) The court further reasoned, "Although defense counsel argued to the jury that the owner of the Cadillac was the one who robbed and shot the third man, the only evidence he referred to in this regard was that the owner and his clothing matched the physical descriptions given by witnesses to the murder and the wallet of the victim was found in his car. However, no evidence placed the car's owner at the scene of the murder or in possession of his car, undisputably used in the commission of the murder, at the time of the offense. Moreover, as conceded by defense counsel in final argument, the eyewitnesses' descriptions of the suspect fit defendant, the owner of the Cadillac and 'probably 100,000 people in Los Angeles.' " (Ibid.) The court also concluded that the issue presented by the proposed pinpoint instruction was adequately explained to the jury in other instructions. "In the context of the facts of the instant case, any evidence of third party culpability, had it been presented, would have raised the same issue as involved in identification." (Kegler, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 81.) As a result, instructions related to the burden of proof, reasonable doubt, alibi, identity based on eyewitnesses and factors to consider duplicated the issues presented in the proposed instruction. (Ibid.)