Opinion ID: 2575903
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Accuracy of Instruction on Possessing Deadly Weapon in Jail

Text: As described ( ante, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 633, 131 P.3d at p. 1029), the jury heard evidence pursuant to section 190.3, factor (b), that on three occasions defendant was caught with contraband razor blades in jail, in violation of section 4574, subdivision (a). The razor blades had been broken away from a modern form of safety razor. Defendant moved to have the jury instructed to disregard this evidence on the ground that, as a matter of law, the razor blades were not deadly weapons within the meaning of section 4574, subdivision (a) (any person who, while lawfully confined in a jail ... possesses therein any ... deadly weapon ... is guilty of a felony....) The court denied the motion. Following defendant's testimony that he had innocent reasons for possessing the razor blades, the jury was instructed, in pertinent part, that each juror could consider the episodes in aggravation under factor (b) of section 190.3 if he or she found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had violated section 4574. The jury was instructed, To determine whether or not an item is a deadly weapon, you must look to the surrounding circumstances; the capability of its being used to inflict death or great bodily injury; and any inferences that may be drawn as to its intended possession. Defendant argues that the jury should have been instructed that the weapon must not only be capable of producing but also must be likely to produce death or great bodily injury, and that the court's failure to so instruct the jury violated his right to have the jury instructed on every element of the offense. (See People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th 287, 383, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432 [The trial court, having decided to identify the other criminal activity and to instruct on its elements, had a duty to do so accurately and not mislead the jury.].) He discerns violations of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. If error had occurred, however, it would have been invited by defendant. The reporter's transcript makes clear that defendant proposed the instruction and not only acquiesced in, but endorsed, a minor modification to it. The trial court chose defendant's language in place of language the prosecutor preferred. Defendant cannot now complain of error. ( People v. Horning, supra, 34 Cal.4th 871, 905, 22 Cal. Rptr.3d 305, 102 P.3d 228.) In any event, there was no error. The instruction the court gave reflects a standard instruction defining a deadly weapon that existed at the time of trial. (Former CALJIC No. 16.291 (5th ed. 1988) [A deadly weapon means any weapon, instrument or object that is capable of being used to inflict death or great bodily injury.].) The standard instruction for section 4574, subdivision (a), defines a  deadly weapon  as any weapon, instrument, or object that has the reasonable potential of being used in a manner that would cause great bodily injury or death. (Judicial Council of Cal.Crim. Instns. (2006) CALCRIM No. 2746; accord, CALJIC No. 7.34.02 (Oct.2005 ed.); see People v. Martinez (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 905, 908-912, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 334.) The standard instruction did not exist at the time of trial, but it is materially indistinguishable from that which defendant requested.