Opinion ID: 1356485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sua sponte instruction on Conley Definition of Malice Aforethought

Text: (17) Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte that malice aforethought includes an awareness of the obligation to act within the general body of laws regulating society. [8] ( People v. Conley, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 322.) Failure to give a requested instruction based on Conley has been held to be reversible error where there is evidence deserving of consideration that defendant lacked an awareness of that duty. ( People v. Poddar (1974) 10 Cal.3d 750, at pp. 760-761 [111 Cal. Rptr. 910, 518 P.2d 342]; People v. Fusselman (1975) 46 Cal. App.3d 289, 301 [120 Cal. Rptr. 282].) Defendant here did not request an instruction, but he argues on appeal that the court had a duty to give it on its own motion. We have already noted the absence of evidence on the Conley aspect of the diminished capacity defense. ( Ante, at p. 250.) Without relevant evidence it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached had the instruction been given; and error, if any, was not prejudicial. (Cal. Const. art. VI, § 13; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, at p. 836.)