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

Therefore, appellant would not be prejudiced by CALJIC Nos. 2.04 and 2.05. (RB
at pp. 207-208.) There are several problems with this contention. First of all, the
argument overlooks the primary purpose for rules of evidence in the common law
system. The law recognizes that unless the evidence is properly controlled
through its admission or instructions as to its proper use, there is a grave danger of
the jury misusing that evidence. Indeed, the essence ofjury instructions is that the
jury needs to be either sheltered from certain evidence or guided in the use of the
evidence because a lay jury is not versed in law or logic.
Thus, numerous rules ofevidence are premised on the fact that the jury will
not instinctively know how to consider certain items of evidence. For example,
Evidence Code section 352 allows for relevant evidence to be excluded ifthere is
a danger that the jury may be confused by the introduction ofthat evidence. This
rule of exclusion may prohibit the introduction ofrelevant evidence in spite ofthe
fact that the jury could simply be instructed at to the proper use ofthe evidence.
Likewise, the traditional rule against character evidence, codified m
Evidence Code section 1101 is not based on theory that character is irrelevant, but
on view that "it is said to weigh too much with the jury and to so overpersuade
them as to prejudge one with a bad general record and deny him a fair opportunity
to defend against a particular charge." (Michelson v. United States (1984) 335
U.S. 469, 476.) As a result, some character evidence must be excluded and the
jury needs to receive instructions as to how to use the evidence that it does receive.
Indeed, the entire body of law relating to jury instructions is premised on
the belief that the jury would not know how to use admissible evidence without
clear guidance from the trial court. If the jury instinctively could follow rules of
logic underlying jury instructons, there would be no need for any jury instructions
beyond those relating to burden of proof. Thus, even when evidence is relevant
the jury needs guidance in explaining how that evidence may be used.
The need for proper limiting instructions that is required for admissible
evidence is even greater when the evidence is inadmissible against one defendant,
94