Opinion ID: 2621639
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instructions on Mental Disorder and Felony Murder

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the mental states required for felony murder in the commission of robbery and burglary as they relate to a defense based on a mental disorder. Defendant claims that by this alleged misinstruction the court not only erred under state law, but also violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and parallel provisions of the state Constitution. The trial court instructed the jury that an unlawful killing in the commission or attempted commission of a robbery was first degree felony murder where there was in the mind of the robber the specific intent to commit such robbery and to permanently deprive the owner of his property. The court also instructed the jury that an unlawful killing in the commission or attempted commission of a burglary was first degree felony murder where there was in the mind of the perpetrator the specific intent to steal, take, and carry away the personal property of any value with the specific intent to deprive the owner permanently. Returning to this subject, the court said: Now again, the unlawful killing of a human, whether intentional, unintentional, or accidental, which occurs as a result of the commission of or the attempt to commit the crime of burglary or the crime of robbery where there was in the mind of the robber or burglar the specific intent to commit such crime is murder of the first degree. Turning to defenses based on intoxication or mental defect, the trial court gave these instructions: Now, let's go back to the felony murder. In the crime of robbery, a necessary element of the crime is the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property. That's the specific intent we're concerned about. [¶] If the evidence shows that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the offense, you may consider his state of intoxication or mental disorder, if any, in determining if the defendant had such required mental state. [¶] Did the intoxication or mental disorder prevent him from having the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property? [¶] In the crime of burglary, a necessary element of the crime is the specific intent to steal and permanently deprive the owner of their property. [¶] Again, if the evidence shows that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the offense, you may consider his state of intoxication or mental disorder, if any, in determining if the defendant had such required mental state. [¶] In other words, did his intoxication or mental disorder affect his ability to have the intent to steal and permanently deprive the owner of his property, which is the necessary specific intent required in the crime of burglary. Defendant asserts that these instructions were erroneous in stating or implying that the only specific intents required for felony murder in the commission of robbery or burglary were the specific intents required for the commission of the underlying felony of robbery or burglary. As defendant points out, this court has stated that the mental state required for felony murder is simply the specific intent to commit the underlying felony. ( People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 608, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683.) Defendant argues that a specific intent to commit the underlying felony means a specific intent to commit the crime as a whole or a specific intent to commit each element of the underlying felony, and not merely the specific intent, if any, that is required for the commission of the underlying felony. Defendant is mistaken, at least as to underlying felonies that are specific intent crimes. For felony murder in the commission of a robbery or of a burglary in which entry is made for the purpose of theft, the only specific intent that the prosecution must prove is the specific intent to steal the victim's property, which includes a specific intent to permanently deprive the victim of the property. ( People v. Lewis, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 642, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392.) A defendant who has this specific intent has the only specific intent required for liability under the felony murder rule. ( People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1080, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 46 P.3d 335 [evidence of intent to steal sufficient for robbery felony murder]; People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 414, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 301, 916 P.2d 1000 [intent to rob means an intent to permanently deprive the victim of property]; People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 31, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 481, 892 P.2d 1224 [Defendant's admission that he entered the residence for the purpose of stealing money proved his specific intent to commit burglary]; People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 56, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 495, 825 P.2d 388 [stating that intent to steal is the only mental state relevant to felony murder in the commission of robbery].) Thus, the trial court instructions on this point were correct.