Opinion ID: 1405957
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Whether Reversal Is Required in This Case

Text: (3a) It is clear under the acquittal-first rule suggested in Stone and clarified here that the trial court erred in instructing the jury not to deliberate on or consider voluntary manslaughter unless and until it had unanimously agreed on second degree murder. We conclude, however, that because the jurors had in fact deliberated on both degrees of murder and on voluntary manslaughter for two days prior to the first erroneous instruction and because even thereafter, despite erroneous guidance from the court, they obviously continued to consider both voluntary manslaughter and second degree murder, it is not reasonably probable that a different result would have occurred had the contested instructions not been given. As noted above, the jurors were originally instructed under CALJIC No. 17.10 which simply told them that if not satisfied unanimously that defendant was guilty of the offense charged, first degree murder, they could find him guilty of second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter as lesser included offenses. Under CALJIC No. 8.72, they were also told if in doubt as between murder and manslaughter, they should resolve the doubt in favor of manslaughter. They reported agreement on manslaughter, but, asked to deliberate on first degree murder, were able to return a verdict of acquittal on that charge. [13] Three degrees of homicide, defendant's mental state, and defendant's defense of honest but unreasonable belief in self-defense were thus obviously under active consideration. Thereafter they continued to pose questions on the relationship between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. Even though they were told to deliberate on second degree murder alone, it is not clear they understood that admonition to preclude considering all aspects of defendant's mental state relating to malice, including whether malice had been negated by defendant's imperfect self-defense claim. The court's final erroneous instruction was, after all, in response to the jury's question as to whether it might find the defendant guilty of manslaughter without finding him not guilty of murder in the second degree. The court's answer then, may have been understood to control the return of verdicts, not limit what evidence could be considered. Jurors had been instructed under CALJIC No. 1.01 (1979 rev.) to consider the instructions as a whole and under CALJIC No. 17.41 to remain open to the arguments of fellow jurors. Until the day before returning their verdict, jurors obviously continued to consider manslaughter, and it is not clear that they did not in fact do so thereafter. Certainly here there was no coercion of a single juror or a small minority of jurors. (4) (See fn. 14.), (3b) The reported split was eight to four and it totally shifted following the weekend hiatus and further deliberations. [14] Given this pattern of continued full and productive deliberations and given the evidence of defendant's guilt, it is not reasonably probable jurors would have found defendant not guilty of second degree murder absent the court's erroneous comments.