People v. Palmer

On this appeal we address an all-too-recurring issue, the trial court’s failure to give defendant-requested instructions specifically directing the jury’s attention to evidence from which it may find reasonable doubt. In light of the general holding in People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180, 190 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 711 , 465 P.2d 847 ], and the precise admonition of People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143, 159, 160 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 616 P.2d 826 ], on the duty to give requested special instructions relating to the reliability of eyewitness identifications in appropriate cases, we are surprised by the regularity with which these binding authorities are seemingly disregarded.

Darin R. Palmer was convicted of six robbery counts (Pen. Code, § 211), five with use of a firearm (§ 12022.5), arising from a single transaction. He claims the trial court prejudicially erred by refusing his requested, specific eyewitness identification instructions.

The only evidence against Palmer is the eyewitness identifications by the robbery victims. We have evaluated the circumstances surrounding each identification in light of the specific factors detailed in the proposed instruction and the special…