BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on how to evaluate circumstantial evidence if the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to establish any element of the case. (People v. Yrigoyen (1955) 45 Cal.2d 46, 49 [286 P.2d 1] [duty exists where circumstantial evidence relied on to prove any element, including intent]; People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 351–352 [233 Cal.Rptr. 368, 729 P.2d 802].)

Give CALCRIM No. 223, Direct and Circumstantial Evidence: Defined, with this instruction.

The Supreme Court has held that it is appropriate to give an instruction specifically tailored to the use of circumstantial evidence in determining the truth of a special circumstance allegation. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 428 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1]; People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 346 [116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432]; People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 653 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392].) However,