California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)

356. Miranda-Defective Statements

Download PDF
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.]
New January 2006
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.
5Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, § 93.
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).
121
0049