222 . Evidence
“Evidence” is the sworn testimony of witnesses, the exhibits admitted
into evidence, and anything else I told you to consider as evidence.
Nothing that the attorneys say is evidence. In their opening statements
and closing arguments, the attorneys discuss the case, but their r emarks
are not evidence. Their questions are not evidence. Only the witnesses’
answers are evidence. The attorneys’ questions are significant only if they
helped you to understand the witnesses’ answers. Do not assume that
something is true just because one of the attorneys asked a question that
suggested it was true.
During the trial, the attorneys may have objected to questions or moved
to strike answers given by the witnesses. I ruled on the objections
according to the law . If I sustained an objection, you must ignore the
question. If the witness was not permitted to answer , do not guess what
the answer might have been or why I ruled as I did. If I ordered
testimony stricken from the r ecord you must disr egard it and must not
consider that testimony for any purpose.
Y ou must disregard anything you saw or heard when the court was not
in session, even if it was done or said by one of the parties or witnesses.
[During the trial, you were told that the People and the defense agr eed,
or stipulated, to certain facts. This means that they both accept those
facts as true. Because there is no dispute about those facts you must also
accept them as true.]
The court (reporter has made a record of/has recorded) everything that
was said during the trial. If you decide that it is necessary , you may ask
that the (court reporter’ s r ecord be read to/court’ s recording be played
for) you. Y ou must accept the (court reporter’s r ecord/court’ s r ecording)
as accurate.
New January 2006; Revised June 2007, August 2009, February 2012, Mar ch 2019,
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
There is no sua sponte duty to instruct on these evidentiary topics; however ,
instruction on these topics has been approved. ( People v . Barajas (1983) 145
Cal.App.3d 804, 809 [193 Cal.Rptr . 750]; People v . Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795,
843-844 [64 Cal.Rptr .2d 400, 938 P .2d 2]; People v . Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068,
1 121 [47 Cal.Rptr .2d 516, 906 P .2d 478].)
If the parties stipulated to one or more facts, give the bracketed paragraph that
begins with “During the trial, you were told.”
If the jury requests transcripts, the court should remind the jury of the right to
request readback and to advise the court whether there is any testimony they want
read. (See People v . T riplett (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 655, 662 [267 Cal.Rptr .3d 675].)
• Evidence Defined. Evid. Code, § 140.
• Arguments Not Evidence. People v . Barajas (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 804, 809
[193 Cal.Rptr . 750].
• Questions Not Evidence. People v . Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 843-844 [64
Cal.Rptr .2d 400].
• Stipulations. Palmer v . City of Long Beach (1948) 33 Cal.2d 134, 141-142 [199
• Striking T estimony . People v . Horton (1995) 1 1 Cal.4th 1068, 1 121 [47
Cal.Rptr .2d 516, 906 P .2d 478].
RELA TED ISSUES
Non-T estifying Courtroom Conduct
There is authority for an instruction informing the jury to disregard defendant’ s in-
court, but non-testifying behavior . ( People v . Gar cia (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 82, 90
[206 Cal.Rptr . 468] [defendant was disruptive in court; court instructed jurors they
should not consider this behavior in deciding guilt or innocence].) However , if the
defendant has put his or her character in issue or another basis for relevance exists,
such an instruction should not be given. ( People v . Garcia, supra , 160 Cal.App.3d at
p. 91, fn. 7; People v . Foster (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 20, 25 [246 Cal.Rptr . 855].)
SECONDAR Y SOURCES
5 W itkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012), Criminal Trial, §§ 715,
4 Millman, Sevilla & T arlow , California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 83,
Evidence , §§ 83.01[1], 83.02[2] (Matthew Bender).
CALCRIM No. 222 POST -TRIAL: INTRODUCTORY
Page last reviewed May 2024
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the case of Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma death row inmate whose conviction has been challenged by the state’s attorney general, and the broader constitutional question of executing innocent people.
Lawyers - Get Listed Now! Get a free directory profile listing
