California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)

300. All Available Evidence

Download PDF
300.All Available Evidence
Neither side is required to call all witnesses who may have information
about the case or to produce all physical evidence that might be
New January 2006
Instructional Duty
The court is not required to give this instruction sua sponte; however, it should be
given on request. (See generally Pen. Code, §§ 1093(f), 1127; People v. Pitts
(1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 606, 880, 881 [273 Cal.Rptr. 757].)
• Instructional Requirements. People v. Simms (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 299, 313
[89 Cal.Rptr. 1].
• This Instruction Upheld. People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174,
1189–1190 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 871].
Secondary Sources
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82,
Witnesses, Ch. 83, Evidence (Matthew Bender).
Willful Suppression of or Failure to Obtain Evidence
Willful suppression of evidence by the government constitutes a denial of a fair
trial and of due process. (People v. Noisey (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 543, 549–550
[71 Cal.Rptr. 339].) Likewise, willful failure by investigating officers to obtain
evidence that would clear a defendant would amount to a denial of due process of
law. (Ibid.) However, failure to look for evidence is different from suppressing
known evidence and “the mere fact that investigating officers did not pursue every
possible means of investigation of crime does not, standing alone, constitute denial
of due process or suppression of evidence.” (Ibid.; see also People v. Tuthill (1947)
31 Cal.2d 92, 97–98 [187 P.2d 16], overruled on other grounds as noted by People
v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144, 182 [222 Cal.Rptr. 184, 711 P.2d 480] [“[t]here
is no compulsion on the prosecution to call any particular witness or to make any
particular tests so long as there is fairly presented to the court the material evidence
bearing upon the charge for which the defendant is on trial.”].)