PEOPLE v. MOORE
Filed 3/17/11
*See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN BURNICE MOORE, Defendant and Appellant. | E048982 (Super.Ct.No. VCR6558) OPINION |
STORY CONTINUE FROM PART I….
b. Discussion
Defendant contends that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that he had a constitutional right not to testify and that no adverse inference could be drawn from his failure to testify. Preliminarily, defendant made clear below, twice, that he was not requesting that the jury be instructed that he had a constitutional right not to testify. We review defendant's claim whether the trial court erred in refusing his requested instruction de novo. (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1111.)
In People v. Lopez (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1107-1109 (Lopez) [Fourth Dist., Div. Two], this court observed, â€
| Description | A jury found true a petition filed by the People to extend the commitment of defendant, Steven Moore, who had previously been adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity (Pen. Code, § 1026.5, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant contends that the trial court's comments about the reasonable doubt standard and its failure to instruct the jury that he had a right not to testify and a negative inference should not be drawn from his failure to testify require reversal of the jury's finding. We disagree and affirm. The facts adduced at the hearing on the petition are not relevant to this appeal. |
| Rating |
