Opinion ID: 2599854
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to instruct on theft as a lesser included offense

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on theft as a lesser included offense of robbery. He also contends this error was one of constitutional dimension requiring reversal. We disagree and instead find no error. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to have his or her jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence and this includes the right, where appropriate, to have the jury instructed on lesser included offenses. ( People v. Ramkeesoon (1985) 39 Cal.3d 346, 351, 216 Cal.Rptr. 455, 702 P.2d 613.) The state has no interest in a defendant obtaining an acquittal where he is innocent of the primary offense charged but guilty of a necessarily included offense. Nor has the state any legitimate interest in obtaining a conviction of the offense charged where the jury entertains a reasonable doubt of guilt of the charged offense but returns a verdict of guilty of that offense solely because the jury is unwilling to acquit where it is satisfied that the defendant has been guilty of wrongful conduct constituting a necessarily included offense. Likewise, a defendant has no legitimate interest in compelling the jury to adopt an all or nothing approach to the issue of guilt. Our courts are not gambling halls but forums for the discovery of truth. ( People v. St. Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524, 533, 83 Cal.Rptr. 166, 463 P.2d 390.) Theft is a lesser included offense of robbery. ( People v. Ortega, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 694, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 489, 968 P.2d 48.) Accordingly, the trial court would have been obligated to instruct on theft as a lesser included offense of robbery, even in the absence of a request (see People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 365, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432 [sua sponte duty]), if the evidence had raised a question as to whether all of the elements of robbery were present and if there was evidence that would have justified a conviction of the lesser offense. ( People v. Ramkeesoon, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 351, 216 Cal.Rptr. 455, 702 P.2d 613.) Defendant advances two theories that he claims demonstrate he was guilty only of theft. First, he asserts the evidence showed he did not decide to steal the victim's property until after she was dead. ( People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 688, 268 Cal.Rptr. 706, 789 P.2d 887 [when the intent to steal arose only after force was used, the offense is theft, not robbery].) We disagree. The prosecution's theory of the case was that defendant had a dual motivation for the crimes: he hated his mother for having him raised by others, and he needed money. The second motivation is of course relevant to robbery. The prosecution thus presented evidence that defendant was only sporadically employed, often asked the victim for money, forcibly took money from her purse when she refused and unsuccessfully solicited Candina Bravo for money on the day of the crimes. The victim was also forcing defendant to move from her home. Although the jury could have simply rejected the prosecution's evidence showing defendant's motivation for killing the victim was money, if there is ho proof, other than an unexplainable rejection of the prosecution's evidence, that the offense was less than that charged, such instructions [on lesser included offenses] shall not be given. ( People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1063, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 5 P.3d 68.) Because there was no reason why the jury would have rejected the prosecution's evidence and defendant presented no evidence that he decided to steal only after the murder, there was no substantial evidence of after-acquired intent and thus no factual predicate for instructing the jury on theft as a lesser included offense. Second, defendant claims that because he stole from a dead person and dead people do not experience fear or respond to force, he can be guilty only of theft and not robbery. (See People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 529-530, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677, 822 P.2d 385 [defendants' testimony he found the victim's rings in a garbage can and did not kill her was sufficient to require instruction on theft as a lesser included offense of robbery].) As we have explained, ante, the evidence showing defendant killed his mother was strong, and he presented no evidence that he just happened upon the victim after she was already dead. The fact, if it be one, that he did not take anything from the victim before he killed her does not make the crime less than a robbery so long as he harbored the intent to steal before he killed her. ( People v. Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 956, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183; People v. Jackson, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1330, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 793.) Although defendant claims the failure to instruct on theft left the jury with an all-or-nothing choice, such a choice did not violate his rights because, on the state of the evidence presented, the crime was either robbery or nothing. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct on theft as a lesser included offense.