P.

DISCUSSION

I The Court Did Not Err In Instructing Pursuant To CALCRIM No. 226 Regarding The Credibility Of Witnesses Defendant contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury with the following language from CALCRIM No. 226: “If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything that witness says, or if you think the witness lied about some things, but told the truth about others, you may . . . simply accept that part that you think is true, and ignore the rest.” Defendant argues this instruction should not be given in a case like this one where the defendant testifies. He reasons that because “[a] criminal defendant always in theory has a motive to lie . . . the defendant consistently was the one witness to which the jury was likely to apply this instruction.” He acknowledges that our Supreme Court rejected similar arguments against the predecessor instruction, CALJIC No. 2.21.2, but argues that CALCRIM No. 226 “encourages, more strongly than does CALJIC No. 2.21.2, a jury to reject the entire testimony of the defendant if it finds a material falsehood somewhere in his testimony.”1 Defendant…