Opinion ID: 2551919
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Theft as Lesser Included Offense of Robbery

Text: Although the charges against defendant did not include robbery, the trial court instructed the jury, under the felony-murder doctrine, that defendant could be convicted of the charged offense of murder if the jury found that the murder occurred during the course of a robbery, and the court accordingly instructed the jury on the elements of robbery. Defendant maintains that in this context the trial court on its own initiative should also have instructed on the elements of theft as a lesser included offense of robbery. Asserting that the jury could have found on the evidence presented that defendant formed the intent to steal only after he had killed a victim, defendant argues that a taking under those circumstances was theft and not murder. Although a trial court on its own initiative must instruct the jury on lesser included offenses of charged offenses, this duty does not extend to uncharged offenses relevant only as predicate offenses under the felony-murder doctrine. ( People v. Miller (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 522, 526-527, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 663; see People v. Memro, supra, 11 Cal.4th 786, 888-890, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 905 P.2d 1305 (cone. & dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).) Because defendant was not charged with robbery, the trial court did not have to instruct the jury on theft as a lesser included offense of robbery. Defendant may be understood to argue also that the trial court, again on its own initiative, should have given the jury a special instruction highlighting the issue of after-formed intentthat a defendant who forms the intent to steal only after killing or otherwise using force against the victim is not guilty of robbery. We reject this contention because an after-formed intent instruction is a pinpoint instruction that a trial court has no obligation to give when neither party has requested that it be given. ( People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 443, 285 Cal. Rptr. 31, 814 P.2d 1273.) Moreover, we have held that the standard instructions on felony murder and robbery, CALJIC Nos. 8.21 and 9.10, adequately cover the issue of the time of the formation of the intent to steal. ( People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 643, 244 Cal.Rptr. 181, 749 P.2d 836; accord, People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 625-626, 276 Cal. Rptr. 874, 802 P.2d 376.) The trial court gave those standard instructions to the jury in this case. In particular, the felony-murder instruction stated that a killing was murder of the first degree if it occurred as a result of the commission of or attempt to commit the crime of robbery, and where there was in the mind of the perpetrator the specific intent to commit such crime.... A reasonable juror would necessarily understand from this instruction that defendant was guilty of robbery-murder only if the intent to steal was formed before the fatal blow was struck. ( People v. Hayes, supra, at p. 629, 276 Cal.Rptr. 874, 802 P.2d 376.)