People v. Standley CA1/2

DISCUSSION

Standley argues that (1) the trial court improperly restricted his right to claim self-defense by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 3472; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing argument by misstating the law of murder and malice and by appealing to the jury’s passion or prejudice; and (3) the trial court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to CALCRIM No. 319 that a statement by Linda Hyde to the Oakland police on the day of the incident could not be considered for its truth.

3 The Trial Court Did Not Commit Reversible Error In Giving CALCRIM No. 3472 Additional Background At the jury instruction conference, the prosecution requested CALCRIM No. 3472, which provides: “A person does not have the right to self-defense if he or she provokes a fight or quarrel with the intent to create an excuse to use force.” Defense counsel objected, and the trial court noted the objection but indicated it would give the instruction. The jury was also instructed, as part of CALCRIM No. 200, that “[s]ome of these instructions may not apply, depending on your findings about the facts of the case. Do not assume just because I give a particular instruction that I am…