P.v. McAdams
A jury convicted Ryan Patrick McAdams of burglary (Pen. Code,[1] 459) and the use of tear gas for purposes other than self-defense ( 12403.7, subd. (g); see also 12401 [defining " '[t]ear gas]' "]). The jury also found true an allegation that the burglary was of an inhabited dwelling ( 460), that a person other than an accomplice was present in the dwelling ( 667.5, subd. (c)(21)), and that McAdams personally used a dangerous weapon (tear gas) ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced McAdams to three years of probation and required him to serve 120 days in custody at a work furlough facility.
McAdams appeals, contending that his convictions must be reversed due to the trial court's instructional errors. Specifically, McAdams argues that the trial court erred by (i) failing to instruct the jury to consider a prior assault suffered by McAdams in evaluating his claim of self-defense; (ii) instructing the jury that the right to use force in self-defense ceases to exist when the danger ends (CALCRIM No. 3474); (iii) instructing the jury that a person cannot claim self-defense if he provokes a fight or quarrel with the intent to create a justification for the use of force (CALCRIM No. 3472); (iv) instructing the jury to consider the evidence (as opposed to the potential absence of evidence) in determining whether the prosecution had proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (CALCRIM No. 220); and (v) instructing the jurors to use their "common sense and experience" (i.e., information outside the record) in evaluating witness testimony (CALCRIM No. 226). As discussed below, Court find these contentions to be without merit and affirm.
Comments on P.v. McAdams