356. Miranda-Defective Statements

356. Miranda-Defective Statements

You have heard evidence that the defendant made a statement to a peace officer. [I am referring to the statement (about which Officer[s] testified/ <insert other description to identify statement, e.g., time and place statement was taken>).]

If you conclude that the defendant made this statement, you may consider it only to help you decide whether to believe the defendant's testimony. You may not consider it as proof that the statement is true or for any other purpose.

[You should view an unrecorded oral statement cautiously.]

Bench Notes

Instructional Duty

There is no sua sponte duty to give a limiting instruction on the use of statements taken in violation of the Miranda rule. (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 63 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30].) The court must give the instruction on request.

If the defendant made more than one statement, but not all of the statements are subject to the limiting admonition, specify the relevant statement or statements using the bracketed text in the first paragraph.

Authority

Instructional Requirements. People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 63 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30]; People v. May (1988) 44 Cal.3d 309 [243 Cal.Rptr. 369, 748 P.2d 307]; Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222 [91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1].

Secondary Sources

3 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Presentation, §§ 318-320.

2 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 30, Confessions and Admissions, §§ 30.02[2], 30.10[3], 30.30[1], 30.57 (Matthew Bender).

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.03[2][c] (Matthew Bender).

(New January 2006)