Opinion ID: 2590272
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on felony murder in furtherance of a conspiracy

Text: The jury was instructed pursuant to CALJIC No. 8.26 that [i]f a number of persons conspire together to commit robbery or kidnapping, and if the life of another person is taken by one or more of them in furtherance of the common design, and if such killing is done to further that common purpose or is an ordinary and probable result of the pursuit of that purpose, all of the co-conspirators are deemed in law to be equally guilty of murder of the first degree, whether the killing is intentional, unintentional, or accidental. Defendant requested that the court add the following sentence to the instruction: If the killing is not done in furtherance of the common design, or not to further the common purpose and is not an ordinary and probable result of the pursuit of that purpose, you may not use the fact that a number of persons have conspired together to commit robbery or kidnapping to determine that all are equally guilty of murder in the first degree. Again, defendant's proffered modification did nothing more than restate the existing instruction to highlight defendant's theory of the case. The jury was instructed pursuant to a correct statement of the law, and defendant was not entitled to an instruction that merely stated the converse of the language that already appeared in the existing instruction. ( People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 32; People v. Ochoa, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 455.)