Opinion ID: 2525107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: The omitted written instructions

Text: The trial court read CALJIC Nos. 2.02 and 2.03 orally, but inadvertently omitted these instructions from the written set with which the jury was provided. Defendant assigns error to this failure. The Attorney General contends defendant has waived this issue by failing to object at trial. Without deciding whether defendant preserved the issue, we find it fails on the merits. Although providing written instructions is generally beneficial and to be encouraged, defendant has no federal or state constitutional right to instructions in writing ( People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 845, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 938 P.2d 2 (Samayoa) ), and the statutory right depends on an express request. (§ 1093, subd. (f).) Furthermore, defendant has not shown it is reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a result more favorable to defendant had it received a written copy of CALJIC Nos. 2.02 and 2.03. ( People v. Cooley (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1394,1399, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 346; People v. Blakley (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1019,1023, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 219.)