Opinion ID: 1179507
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inadequate Premeditation Instructions.

Text: (6) Defendant next argues that the trial court's instructions on the subject of premeditation were inadequate because they failed to explain the effect of defendant's supposed abandoned intent, previously discussed. Defendant points to the evidence indicating that even though he may have originally premeditated the slayings, he later abandoned that intent and unsuccessfully sought to leave the scene. The jury should have been instructed sua sponte, defendant maintains, that evidence of premeditation is not sufficient ... if it demonstrates no more than that a defendant formulated a plan to kill his victim which was later abandoned. The court gave an instruction, in the language of CALJIC No. 8.20, stating that to constitute first degree murder the killing must be the result of premeditation, and not a sudden heat of passion or rash impulse. No reasonable juror would have believed that a premeditated murder finding could be made despite an abandonment of premeditated intent prior to the slaying, and the trial court had no sua sponte duty to instruct further on that subject. If defendant wanted more elaborate instructions on this point, he should have proposed them. ( People v. Poddar (1974) 10 Cal.3d 750, 760 [111 Cal. Rptr. 910, 518 P.2d 342]; People v. Anderson (1966) 64 Cal.2d 633, 639 [51 Cal. Rptr. 238, 414 P.2d 366]; People v. Forbs (1965) 62 Cal.2d 847, 854 [44 Cal. Rptr. 753, 402 P.2d 825].)