Opinion ID: 2517324
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Unanimity on the Type of Murder

Text: (10) Defendant also argues that the court erred by failing to instruct the jury that it had to agree unanimously on whether he committed premeditated murder or felony murder. [8] Again, he acknowledges we have repeatedly rejected this argument, but asks us to reconsider it. (E.g., People v. Nakahara (2003) 30 Cal.4th 705, 712-713 [134 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 68 P.3d 1190], citing cases; see also People v. Geier, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 592; People v. Carey, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 132-133.) Defendant submits no cogent rationale for a different rule, however. The United States Supreme Court has held that a jury need not unanimously agree on whether the defendant committed premeditated or felony murder, and this rule has been widely adopted by state courts. ( Schad v. Arizona (1991) 501 U.S. 624, 640-642 [115 L.Ed.2d 555, 111 S.Ct. 2491] (plur. opn. of Souter, J.), citing cases; id. at pp. 649-651 (conc. opn. of Scalia, J.).) Defendant attempts to distinguish Schad on the ground that Arizona courts have not deemed premeditation and the commission of a felony to be independent elements of murder, whereas California courts have sometimes employed the element terminology. The distinction is merely semantic. The Arizona murder statute at issue in Schad was substantially similar to section 189, and to the common law definition of murder in existence since at least the early 16th century. ( Schad v. Arizona, supra, 501 U.S. at p. 648 (conc. opn. of Scalia, J.); see id. at p. 629, fn. 1 (plur. opn. of Souter, J.); fn. 7, ante, at p. 1295.) Whether the mental states required for a conviction of first degree murder are described as elements ( People v. Nakahara, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 712), theories ( ibid. ), or alternative means of satisfying the element of mens rea  ( Schad v. Arizona, supra, 501 U.S. at p. 632 (plur. opn. of Souter, J.)), the rule remains the same: the jury need only unanimously agree that the defendant committed first degree murder. In any event, as the Attorney General notes, here the jury unanimously found that defendant murdered Contreras during the commission of a robbery. (See People v. Cleveland, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 751.)