PEOPLE v. MOORE Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html > <head> <title>PEOPLE v</title> </head> <body> <div> <br/><b >PEOPLE v. </b><b >MOORE</b><b ></b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>Filed 3/17/11 <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>*See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion <br/> <br/><b >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b> <br/><b > </b> <br/> <br/><b >IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF </b><b >CALIFORNIA</b><b ></b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b >FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT</b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b >DIVISION TWO</b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 > <tr > <td width=319 valign=top > <br/>THE PEOPLE, <br/> <br/> Plaintiff and Respondent, <br/> <br/>v. <br/> <br/>STEVEN BURNICE MOORE, <br/> <br/> Defendant and Appellant. <br/> </td> <td width=319 valign=top > <br/> <br/> <br/> E048982 <br/> <br/> (Super.Ct.No. VCR6558) <br/> <br/> OPINION <br/> </td> </tr> </table> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE FROM PART I….</b> <br/> <br/> <br/><i >b</i>. <i >Discussion</i> <br/> Defendant contends that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that he had a <i >constitutional</i> right not to testify and that no adverse inference could be drawn from his failure to testify. Preliminarily, defendant made clear below, twice, that he was not requesting that the jury be instructed that he had a <i >constitutional </i>right not to testify. We review defendant's claim whether the trial court erred in refusing his requested instruction de novo. (<i >People v. Martin</i> (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1111.) <br/> In <i >People v. Lopez</i> (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1107-1109 (<i >Lopez</i>) [Fourth Dist., Div. Two], this court observed, â€