California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Williams, 174 Cal.App.2d 364, 345 P.2d 47 (Cal. App. 1959):
'These statements were by way of explanation of the usual procedures and correctly informed appellant of his right to suggest instructions to the jury. He had opportunity to read these instructions and obtain any desired explanations at that time. All the instructions were considered and approved by appellant. Neither the court not the District Attorney had a duty to inform appellant as to all possible instructions for the court had the duty to instruct on his own motion instructions necessary for a proper determination of the case. (People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885 [129 P.2d 367].) These statements did not have any prejudicial tendency.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.