Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

B. Respondent's Arguments Are Misplaced
Respondent argues that the denial of the requested instruction was proper
because "'a trial court need not give a pinpoint instruction if it merely duplicates
other instructions.' (Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Ca1.4th at p. 220.)" (RB at p. 203.)
However, the instruction requested by appellant's counsel was not duplicative of
other instructions. None ofthe instructions given at any time in the trial informed
the jury that the evidence giving rise to these instructions related only to Nunez.
The instructions given to the jury at the end oftrial regarding evidence that
was limited in its scope specifically stated that "at the time" certain evidence was
admitted the jury was instructed that it could not be used for "any purpose other
than the limited purpose for which it was admitted," and the jury could not
consider the evidence for any other purpose. (CALJIC Nos. 207 - Evidence
Limited to One Defendant - and 2.09 Evidence Limited as to Purpose -, given at
37 CT 10725, 10722, 14 RT 3162-3163.)
However, as explained in Appellant's Opening Brief(AOB at pp. 183-184),
at the time that the evidence giving rise to CALJIC Nos. 2.04 and 2.05 was
introduced, the jury was not informed of its limited use. As a result, the crucial
aspect of the instruction appellant was requesting - Le., that the jury be informed
this evidence could only be used against Nunez - had not been explained to the
jury in other instructions. In fact, by restricting limiting instructions to evidence
for which an instruction had been given at the time of the admission of the
evidence, and by not giving a limiting instruction at the time ofthe introduction of
the evidence of Nunez's alleged behavior, CALJIC Nos. 2.07 and 2.09 as given
had the opposite effect. In other words, because there had been no limiting
instruction given at the time the evidence was introduced, the jury could naturally
assume it was not limited in any way and could therefore be used against
appellant.
Respondent further argues that there was no error or prejudice because the
evidence giving rise to CALJIC Nos. 2.04 and 2.05 involved the actions ofNunez.
93