People v. Shepard CA5

DISCUSSION

We review claims of instructional error de novo. (People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218.) “‘“In determining whether error has been committed in giving or not giving jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole … [and] assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given. [Citation.]”’” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1111-1112.) We view jury instructions in the context of the overall charges, not in artificial isolation. (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 777.) “‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088.) In this case, the trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 332 regarding the jury’s evaluation of expert testimony, as follows:

“Witnesses were allowed to testify as experts and to give opinions. You must consider the opinions, but you are not required to accept them as true or correct. The meaning and importance of any opinion are for you to decide. In evaluating the…