People v. Diaz
60 Cal. 4th 1176
| Cal. | 2015Background
- Dora Diaz was convicted of attempted murder and three counts of making criminal threats after a group attack in which she allegedly summoned assailants and made threats to the victim and his family.
- Multiple eyewitnesses (victim Eduardo, his mother Marta, and sister-in-law Indira) testified to substantially similar threatening statements by Diaz (e.g., “if you don’t die this time, you’ll die next time,” “I’m going to kill you,” and threats to kill family members).
- The trial court gave standard credibility and reasonable-doubt instructions but did not, sua sponte, give CALCRIM No. 358 (cautionary instruction to view out-of-court statements of the defendant with caution), and defense made no request for it.
- On appeal, Diaz argued omission of the cautionary instruction was reversible error; the Court of Appeal affirmed as harmless and disagreed with People v. Zichko.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the cautionary instruction applies to criminal threats and whether the trial court must give it sua sponte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CALCRIM No. 358 (caution regarding defendant’s out-of-court statements) applies when the statements themselves constitute criminal threats | AG: The instruction could conflict with proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt and is unnecessary because truth of threats is immaterial | Diaz: Instruction should apply because extrajudicial statements are unreliable and may be misreported | Held: Instruction applies to criminal threats — caution aids assessment of whether statements were in fact made and is consistent with reasonable-doubt instruction |
| Whether the trial court must give the cautionary instruction sua sponte (without a defendant request) in criminal cases | AG: Court should not be required to give it sua sponte and could eliminate it entirely | Diaz: Court should be required to give it sua sponte (or at least maintain existing rule) | Held: Court need not give it sua sponte; defendant may request it but court must give mandatory general credibility instructions that mitigate need for automatic cautionary instruction |
| Whether prior Court of Appeal holding in People v. Zichko (that instruction doesn’t apply to threats) should control | AG: Zichko’s reasoning supports limiting the instruction | Diaz: Zichko wrongly narrows instruction to admissions only | Held: Disapproved People v. Zichko to extent it held cautionary instruction inapplicable to threats |
| Prejudice/harm from omission in this case | AG: Omission was harmless given other evidence and credibility instructions | Diaz: Omission prejudiced her, particularly on intent and premeditation for attempted murder | Held: Omission was harmless beyond a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome for defendant given consistent testimony and strong circumstantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carpenter, 15 Cal.4th 312 (Cal. 1997) (broad application of cautionary instruction to pre-offense statements and admissions)
- People v. Beagle, 6 Cal.3d 441 (Cal. 1972) (affirmed sua sponte duty to give cautionary instruction following statutory repeal)
- People v. Bemis, 33 Cal.2d 395 (Cal. 1949) (explaining rationale for requiring caution when jurors consider extrajudicial admissions)
- People v. Zichko, 118 Cal.App.4th 1055 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (disapproved to the extent it held cautionary instruction inapplicable to criminal threats)
- People v. McKinnon, 52 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2011) (cautionary instruction applicable to oral threats)