Opinion ID: 2563933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on Firearm-use Enhancements

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court's instruction on the allegations that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of certain offenses was erroneous because, in lieu of defining the term firearm, the court included an instruction that firearm includes a Smith and Wesson .357 magnum revolver. The evidence showed that the weapon used in this case was a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver. Consequently, defendant contends, the instruction in effect directed a verdict on an issue of fact in violation of her Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a jury trial and to proof beyond a reasonable doubt under the federal Constitution, and her right to due process of law under the state Constitution. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 15.) We rejected an analogous argument in People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 443 [250 Cal.Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135]. In Brown, the defendant was charged with murdering a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties. We held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that a Garden Grove police officer and a Garden Grove reserve police officer are peace officers. This instruction took no element from the jury; it merely instructed the jury on a point of statutory lawa point not open to dispute that a Garden Grove police officer is a peace officer. [Citations.] The jury was left to make all essential factual determinations, including whether the victim was a Garden Grove police officer. ( Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 443-444; cf. People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 504-507 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869] [the trial court's instruction that certain named individuals are peace officers was harmless error].) Similarly, in the present case, the jury merely was instructed on a point of law that was not open to dispute. The jury was left to decide the factual question of whether defendant used a Smith and Wesson .357 magnum revolver in the commission of the crimes. (See People v. Runnion (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 852, 856-858 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 203] [trial court did not err in instructing the jury that the word firearm includes a handgun].) We find no error.