conﬂicts. Consider whether the differences are important or not. People
sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what they
remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear
[If the evidence establishes that a witness’s character for truthfulness
has not been discussed among the people who know him or her, you
may conclude from the lack of discussion that the witness’s character
for truthfulness is good.]
[If you do not believe a witness’s testimony that he or she no longer
remembers something, that testimony is inconsistent with the witness’s
earlier statement on that subject.]
[If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something
signiﬁcant in this case, you should consider not believing anything that
witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some things, but
told the truth about others, you may simply accept the part that you
think is true and ignore the rest.]
New January 2006; Revised June 2007, April 2008
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on factors relevant to a witness’s
credibility. (People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 883–884 [123 Cal.Rptr.
119, 538 P.2d 247].) Although there is no sua sponte duty to instruct on
inconsistencies in testimony or a witness who lies, there is authority approving
instruction on both topics. (Dodds v. Stellar (1946) 77 Cal.App.2d 411, 426 [175
P.2d 607]; People v. Murillo (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1107 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d
The court may strike any of the enumerated impermissible bases for bias that are
clearly inapplicable in a given case.
Give all of the bracketed factors that are relevant based on the evidence. (Evid.
Code, § 780(e), (i), and (k).)
Give any of the ﬁnal three bracketed paragraphs if relevant based on the evidence.
If the court instructs on a prior felony conviction or prior misconduct admitted
pursuant to People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 418, 841 P.2d
938], the court should consider whether to give CALCRIM No. 316, Additional
Instructions on Witness Credibility—Other Conduct. (See Bench Notes to that
• Factors. Evid. Code, § 780; People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864,
883–884 [123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247].
CALCRIM No. 226 POST-TRIAL: INTRODUCTORY