Opinion ID: 2588259
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Instruction on sequence of deliberation

Text: The trial court instructed the jury: [I]f you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder of the first degree by reason of having committed murder in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate the crime of robbery ... the additional instructions which I'm now going to give you have no application .... [I]f you're satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt he's guilty of murder in the first degree by reason of having committed murder in the attempt to commit robbery, then it's murder in the first degree. If, on the other hand, you're not so satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the killing occurred during a robbery, then the instructions I'm now going to give you on murder will apply. The court then instructed on premeditated first degree murder and on second degree murder. Defendant contends this instruction impermissibly directed the jury to consider the theories of murder in a particular sequence. Although a court may restrict a jury from returning a verdict on a lesser included offense before acquitting on a greater one, it may not preclude the jury from considering lesser offenses during deliberations. ( People v. Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1073, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40; People v. Kurtzman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 322, 324-325, 250 Cal. Rptr. 244, 758 P.2d 572.) We find no error. Nothing in the trial court's instruction required the jury to consider felony murder or premeditated murder before it considered the lesser included offense of second degree murder. The court also instructed the jury that there was no significance to the order of the instructions and that each instruction should be considered in light of all the others. We perceive no reasonable likelihood the jury felt constrained to proceed in the sequential manner defendant suggests. ( People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 537, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 680, 950 P.2d 1035.)