Opinion ID: 1433861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Verdict Form for Prior Felony Conviction Allegation

Text: The trial court bifurcated proceedings on the truth of the allegation that defendant had previously been convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter and deferred consideration pending the jury's determination of guilt on the substantive charges. Following the submission of evidence on the prior allegation, the jury received a verdict form on which to record their finding, which read: We, the Jury, empaneled to try the above-entitled cause, find it to be true that the defendant Paul Clarence Bolin previously has been convicted of a violation of 664/192.1 of the Penal Code, within the [meaning] of Penal Code Section 667. [9] The form also contained an alternate version for a not true finding. [10] Defendant now maintains the verdict was defective due to the unintelligible reference to section 192.1, which assertedly is not a valid statute. He further contends this defect rendered the subsequent penalty verdict unreliable. We find no objection of record to the form of the verdict either at the time the court proposed to submit it or when the jury returned its finding. The issue is therefore waived. ( People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 446, 285 Cal.Rptr. 31, 814 P.2d 1273.) We also find no prejudicial defect. Defendant was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter in 1983. At that time, nonvehicular voluntary manslaughter was set forth in section 192, subdivision 1, also referred to as section 192.1, as in the abstract of judgment for defendant's prior conviction. (See Stats.1945, ch. 1006, ง 1, p.1942; see also Stats.1984, ch. 742, ง 1, p. 2703 [amending section 192 to designate former subdivision (1) as subdivision (a)].) Any variance in the wording was thus technical at worst. [T]echnical defects in a verdict may be disregarded if the jury's intent to convict of a specified offense within the charges is unmistakably clear, and the accused's substantial rights suffered no prejudice. [Citations.] ( People v. Webster, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 447, 285 Cal.Rptr. 31, 814 P.2d 1273, fn. omitted; see งง 1258, 1404.) The jury returned a true finding based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the proceeding, all of which was predicated on the allegation defendant had been convicted under former section 192, subdivision 1. Accordingly, we discern no possibility of prejudice.