Opinion ID: 2590272
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Felony murder based on robbery and kidnapping instruction

Text: The trial court instructed the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 8.21 that [t]he unlawful killing of a human being, whether intentional, unintentional or accidental, which occurs during the commission or attempted commission of the crime or as a direct causal result of robbery or kidnapping is murder of the first degree when the perpetrator had the specific intent to commit such crime. The specific intent to commit robbery or kidnapping and the commission or attempted commission of such crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing his proposed modification to CALJIC No. 8.21, which would have added the following language: If the unlawful killing is committed after the commission or attempted commission of the crime of robbery or kidnapping is completed, and is not a direct causal result of robbery kidnapping, you may not use the attempted commission or commission of the crime of robbery or kidnapping to find that the killing is a murder of the first degree. [12] (12) A trial court must instruct the jury, even without a request, on all general principles of law that are `closely and openly connected to the facts and that are necessary for the jury's understanding of the case.' [Citation.] In addition, `a defendant has a right to an instruction that pinpoints the theory of the defense ....' ( People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 715 [27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360, 110 P.3d 289].) The court may, however, properly refuse an instruction offered by the defendant if it incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, or potentially confusing [citation], or if it is not supported by substantial evidence [citation]. ( People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 30.) In the present case, defendant's trial counsel conceded that the requested modification merely restated the existing instructional language. [13] The proposed instruction would not have provided the jury with anything beyond what it otherwise learned from CALJIC No. 8.21 and CALJIC former No. 9.44, and accordingly it was duplicative and properly was refused by the trial court. ( People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 455 [110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78] [affirming refusal to give virtually identical proposed instruction].)