Opinion ID: 1386250
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Assault as a Lesser Included Offense of Robbery

Text: The jury convicted defendant of two counts of robbery. The Penal Code defines robbery as the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. (ง 211, italics added.) (7) In People v. Geiger (1984) 35 Cal.3d 510, 517, footnote 4 [199 Cal. Rptr. 45, 674 P.2d 1303, 50 A.L.R.4th 1055], we explained that for purposes of discerning whether a lesser offense is necessarily included in a greater offense, courts look either to the statutory definition of the offense or to the charging allegations of the accusatory pleading. The information in this case charged defendant with a felonious taking by means of force and fear. (8) Based on the pleading's use of the phrase force and fear in defining robbery, defendant contends that the crime of assault was necessarily included within the offense of robbery as charged and that the trial court thus had a sua sponte obligation to instruct on a lesser offense of assault. Even assuming for purposes of argument that assault is a lesser included offense of robbery as charged here, defendant's contention fails. A trial court must instruct sua sponte on a lesser included offense only if there is substantial evidence to support a jury's determination that the defendant was in fact only guilty of the lesser offense. ( People v. Ramos (1982) 30 Cal.3d 553, 582 [180 Cal. Rptr. 266, 639 P.2d 908], italics added.) There was no such evidence in this case.