Opinion ID: 1210155
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Asserted Denial of a Fair Trial

Text: Defendants further contend that they were denied a fair trial in that, although they were charged with violating Penal Code section 4500, the trial was conducted as if the charge was murder. (6) In this connection they first argue that it was improper to admit the testimony of the physician and autopsy surgeon concerning Thompson's death because, assertedly, the fact of his death was irrelevant. Defendants admit that no objection was made to the evidence at the trial. Even had an objection on the ground of relevancy been made at the trial, it would not have been error to admit the testimony. ( People v. Berry, 44 Cal.2d 426, 431 [282 P.2d 861] [overruled on another ground in People v. St. Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 537 (83 Cal. Rptr. 166, 463 P.2d 390)].) The findings of the physicians and their opinions as to the cause of death were relevant in the determination of the amount of force used and, consequently, of the mental attitude of each defendant at the time of the assault. (7) Defendants further argue that certain instructions, some of which were offered by the prosecution and others by the defense, improperly used terms such as fatal blow and homicide  that such instructions emphasized to the jury that it was dealing with a case of homicide and could have no other effect than to prejudice and confuse the jury. However, as we have seen, evidence of the victim's death was properly admitted, and since the jury was aware of his death it is clear that the references in the instructions to the terms in question would not have prejudiced the jury against defendants. Nor would the references have confused the jury. The instructions given made clear the charge against defendants and the various possible verdicts.