Opinion ID: 1454621
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: The Homicide Instructions

Text: Defendant challenges the homicide instructions on several grounds. (40) First, he argues that the court's omission of CALJIC Nos. 8.70, 8.71, and 8.73 created a charge that did not adequately distinguish between first and second degree murder. The omitted instructions tell the jury of its duties to state the degree of murder in its verdict and to return a verdict of second degree murder if it has a reasonable doubt on the issue of degree. The omission of these instructions was not error. The evidence in this case established either that Van Zandt was killed by defendant as a part of a robbery (the prosecution theory) or by Barrett and/or Eckstrom, with or without justification (the defense theory). Defendant advances no theory consistent with the evidence that would have allowed the jury to convict him of second degree murder. [12] Hence, his objections concerning instructions about that offense are unfounded. ( People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684-685 [160 Cal. Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1]; People v. Teale (1965) 63 Cal.2d 178, 192-193 [45 Cal. Rptr. 729, 404 P.2d 209].) (41) Second, defendant argues that the trial court erroneously declined his request that the jury be instructed that first degree felony murder does not apply to a homicide resulting from the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate an assault with a deadly weapon. He suggests that the jury might have concluded that he was guilty of first degree felony murder based on his assault on Van Zandt, while rejecting the prosecution's contention that he intended to commit robbery. In light of the court's actual charge, defendant's suggestion cannot be supported. Robbery was the only felony mentioned by the court in the felony-murder instructions. The jury was told that in order to find defendant guilty of murder it would have to find as an essential element of the crime that the killing occurred during the commission of a felony, to wit: Robbery. There were no instructions allowing consideration of assault as a felony to which the felony-murder rule would apply. Assault was not mentioned at all by the court. Indeed, it was mentioned only by defense counsel in his argument to emphasize, consistent with the instructions, that a mere assault on the victim was not enough to convict defendant of first degree murder. Under these circumstances, defendant's suggestion that the jury found him guilty of felony murder because of an assault on Van Zandt amounts to speculation. Even assuming the court erred in refusing the requested instruction on assault, the error could not have prejudiced defendant. The jury's findings that defendant was guilty of felony murder and robbery, and that the robbery special circumstance was true, necessarily encompassed a determination that defendant formed an intent to steal before he struck Van Zandt and that he carried out the fatal beating to effectuate that intent. [13] Defendant's claim of prejudice is inconsistent with the jury's determination and is, for that reason, rejected. (See People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 691-693 [268 Cal. Rptr. 706, 789 P.2d 887]; People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 745-747 [244 Cal. Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741].) (42) Finally, defendant complains that the trial court gave superfluous instructions on involuntary manslaughter and other classes of homicide. The jury was told to disregard any inapplicable instructions. Particularly in view of the abundant evidence supporting defendant's conviction of first degree felony murder with a robbery special circumstance and the absence of any inference that any inapplicable instruction improperly influenced the verdict, we discern no prejudice from the extra instructions. ( People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 835 [163 Cal. Rptr. 601, 608 P.2d 689]; People v. Hesslink (1985) 167 Cal. App.3d 781, 791-792 [213 Cal. Rptr. 465].)