P. v. Howard
Ezekiel Ladonne Howard was convicted of assault with a firearm and shooting at an occupied vehicle. He contends that the pattern instruction given to the jury on eyewitness identifications, CALCRIM No. 315, was erroneous and unconstitutional because it stated that a witness’s level of certainty in making an identification is a relevant consideration. Howard says social science research shows no correlation between an eyewitness’s degree of certainty and the accuracy of the witness’s identification.
Howard did not object to the instruction at trial and he has not demonstrated that his substantial rights were affected by it. Consequently, he has forfeited the issue and it is unnecessary for us to consider the merits of his contention about the lack of scientific support for the instruction. The judgment will be affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Howard