Opinion ID: 2637623
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Erroneous Murder Instruction

Text: When the trial court read CALJIC No. 8.10which defined murderto the jury, it misread the instruction. Instead of stating that [e]very person who unlawfully kills a human being during the commission or attempted commission of a robbery, kidnapping or rape or with malice aforethought is guilty of the crime of murder the court mistakenly told the jury that a person is guilty of murder if he unlawfully kills a human being during the commission or attempted commission of a robbery, kidnapping, or rape with malice aforethought.  Defendant contends the trial court's misreading of this instruction was prejudicial and warrants reversal of his murder conviction. Defendant is wrong. First, we recently held that the misreading of a jury instruction does not warrant reversal if the jury received the correct written instructions. ( People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1212, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130.) Although defendant urges us to reconsider, we see no reason to do so. Second, the court's misreading could only have benefited defendant because it narrowed the elements of murder. Accordingly, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24, 87 S.Ct. 824.)