Opinion ID: 1196421
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Sequence of Deliberations

Text: (19) Defendant next contends his constitutional rights to due process and to a fair jury trial were compromised by an instruction constraining the jury's freedom to deliberate in the order it thought most prudent. He is mistaken. The jury was instructed largely in the language of CALJIC No. 8.75, which states that the jury should first  determine whether defendant is guilty or not guilty of ... first degree murder.... [¶] If you unanimously agree that defendant is not guilty of murder in the first degree, ... you will determine whether defendant is guilty or not guilty of murder in the second degree. (Italics added.) A similar instruction directed the jury to continue to determine defendant's guilt of manslaughter should it find defendant not guilty of second degree murder. Significantly, the trial court informed the jury just prior to delivering CALJIC No. 8.75 that You may deliberate on the charged and lesser included offenses in any order you wish, however, you must make your determinations in the order that I now discuss. (Italics added.) By delivering this instruction, the trial court anticipated this court's decisions in People v. Kurtzman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 322 [250 Cal. Rptr. 244, 758 P.2d 572], and People v. Hernandez (1988) 47 Cal.3d 315 [253 Cal. Rptr. 199, 763 P.2d 1289]. By instructing the jury it could deliberate in any order it wished but must determine guilt according to a certain order, the trial court correctly guided the jury. ( Kurtzman, supra, at p. 336; Hernandez, supra, at p. 352.)