Opinion ID: 1176393
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: How Intent Is Shown.

Text: (34) The jury was instructed in the language of CALJIC No. 3.34 (1979 rev.) that the intent with which an act is done is shown by the circumstances attending the act, the manner in which it is done, the means used, and the soundness of mind and discretion of the person committing the act. The court omitted from the instruction the provision stating that intent is also shown by a statement of his intent made by a defendant. Defendant contends that the omission constituted prejudicial error because there was evidence of statements he made regarding his intent at the time of the homicides and a reasonable juror would have understood the instruction given as excluding such statements from consideration on the issue of intent. The statements to which defendant refers were not statements of intent. Defendant did not directly state that he did or did not intend to kill Ernest, did or did not intend to save his own life. Rather, his statements were descriptive of the circumstances attending the act and thus were not excluded from consideration by the instruction. The instruction is not ambiguous, does not state or imply that defendant's statements should be disregarded on the issue of intent, and is not susceptible to a construction barring consideration of the statements of defendant received in evidence in this case.