Opinion ID: 1359265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on Special Circumstances: Intent to Kill

Text: (19) Defendants argue that the special circumstance allegations should be set aside because the trial court did not instruct the jury that it must find that defendants harbored the intent to kill in order to find the allegations true. Because the prosecution offered no evidence that defendants were the actual killers of any of the victims in this case, the jury could find the special circumstance allegations to be true as to each defendant only if it concluded that the defendant had the intent to kill. ( People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1147-1150 [240 Cal. Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306].) The trial court, however, adequately instructed the jury on intent to kill: If defendant was not the actual killer it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested or assisted the actual killer in the commission of the murder in the first degree before you are permitted to find the alleged special circumstance of that first degree murder to be true as to defendant. We have repeatedly held that a reasonable juror would construe this instruction as imposing a requirement of intent to kill. ( People v. Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 877, 898 [26 Cal. Rptr.2d 189, 864 P.2d 460]; People v. Pinholster, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 954; People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 516-517 [273 Cal. Rptr. 537, 797 P.2d 561]; People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487 [247 Cal. Rptr. 172, 754 P.2d 218].) [19]