Opinion ID: 1167454
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Instructions as to murder by means of lying in wait.

Text: [10] Although defendant contends that the evidence did not justify the court in instructing the jury that All murder which is perpetrated by means of lying in wait is murder in the first degree, ample evidence supports this instruction; defendant confessed to conduct which justifies it. The jury in its discretion could reject defendant's version of the criminal episode as described at the trial and accept, instead, his earlier tape-recorded statements to the police. Officer Morrison verified the transcript of the tape-recorded statements as required for its introduction. ( People v. Wojahn (1959) 169 Cal. App.2d 135, 146 [337 P.2d 192]; People v. Wootan (1961) 195 Cal. App.2d 481 [15 Cal. Rptr. 833].) The tape recording and transcript were admissible evidence. ( People v. Stephens (1953) 117 Cal. App.2d 653, 660 [256 P.2d 1033]; People v. Wojahn, supra, p. 146.) The transcript implemented the tape recording in those instances where the tape was unclear; this court has approved the above procedure in previous decisions. ( People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 519 [30 Cal. Rptr. 538, 381 P.2d 394]; see also People v. Dupree (1957) 156 Cal. App.2d 60, 68 [319 P.2d 39]; People v. Albert (1960) 182 Cal. App.2d 729, 742 [6 Cal. Rptr. 473].) Defendant, in his tape-recorded confession, stated that he picked up the rock in his front yard early Sunday morning with the intent to kill someone. After his mother let him into the house and they had each retired to their respective sleeping quarters, defendant called to her, perhaps saying Hey, come here for a second. He waited in the dark of the bedroom corridor until she arose and opened her bedroom door; then he struck her. The instruction concerning murder by lying in wait appropriately stemmed from these events; the record affords evidence of defendant's intention to kill and of his perpetration of his mother's murder by means of lying in wait for the opportune moment to strike. (See People v. Sutic (1953) 41 Cal.2d 483, 492-493 [261 P.2d 241]; People v. Byrd (1954) 42 Cal.2d 200, 208-209 [266 P.2d 505]; People v. Tuthill (1947) 31 Cal.2d 92, 99-101 [187 P.2d 16].)