Opinion ID: 2637623
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Erroneous Instruction Regarding Elements of a Section 136.1 Offense

Text: In instructing the jury on the specific intent element of a section 136.1 violation, the trial court stated in relevant part that: The crime of Intimidation of a Witness requires the specific intent to prevent or dissuade another person from reporting any victimization. Defendant contends the instruction was prejudicial because it created the misleading impression that an intent to dissuade reporting the victimization to anyone, even someone not affiliated with law enforcement, would satisfy the requirements of section 136.1. This contention is meritless. As an initial matter, we reject the People's contention that defendant waived any errors in the instructions on the elements of unadjudicated crimes introduced as aggravating factors by failing to object. Although there is no sua sponte duty at the penalty phase to instruct on the elements of `other crimes' introduced in aggravation [citation], when such instructions are given, they should be accurate and complete. ( People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 942, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 705, 855 P.2d 1277; see also People v. Malone (1988) 47 Cal.3d 1, 49, 252 Cal.Rptr. 525, 762 P.2d 1249.) The right to correct instructions on crimes introduced in aggravation at the penalty phase stems from the right to have the penalty jury consider such crimes only if it finds them true beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Montiel, at p. 942, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, 855 P.2d 1277.) Because defendant had the right to correct instructions on the elements of other crimes introduced in aggravation, and because courts may review instructional errors that affect the substantial rights of the defendant (§ 1259), defendant did not waive these errors by failing to object. The People urge us to reconsider our holdings in Montiel and Malone, but offer no compelling reason for us to do so. Nonetheless, defendant's contention fails because he ignores the other instructions. In another instruction given before the specific intent instruction, the trial court informed the jury that: Every person who attempts to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is a witness to a crime, from making any report of such victimization to any law enforcement officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge is guilty of the crime of violation of Penal Code section 136.1, intimidation of a witness. Read together, the two instructions are not misleading and clearly state that a violation of section 136.1 occurs only if a defendant prevents or dissuades a witness from reporting a crime to the authorities. [16] Thus, the instructions were proper.