People v. Khamo CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Khamo contends on appeal that the court erred by failing to instruct the jury that H.T. testified under a grant of immunity. Specifically, Khamo argues that the court had a sua sponte duty to revise CALCRIM No. 226 to include the bracketed language instructing the jury that among the factors it could consider was whether a witness was promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his testimony. (See CALCRIM No. 226.) We disagree. In criminal cases, the trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on all general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the

As given to the jury, CALCRIM No. 226 stated in relevant part: “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…