Opinion ID: 2633286
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refusal of Instructions on Lesser Included Offenses

Text: Defendant contends the trial court improperly refused his request for instructions on battery (§ 242) and brandishing a weapon (§ 417). Instructions on the elements of the offenses presented under section 190.3, factor (b) are not required in the absence of a request by counsel. ( People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 589, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347; see also id., fn. 14 [rule that instruction on elements of prior violent crime is not required sua sponte is unaffected by Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348].) A trial court, however, may give such elements instructions on its own motion when they are vital to a proper consideration of the evidence. ( People v. Cain, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 72, 40 Cal. Rptr.2d 481, 892 P.2d 1224.) Once defense counsel asked that the jury be instructed on attempted rape, the trial court informed counsel it would also instruct on assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder. Based on de Maderos's testimony that defendant poked her throat with his machete and threatened to kill her, there was substantial evidence to support instructing the jury on assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder. In addition, the court expressed concern that if only the attempted rape instruction were given, the jury might become confused and question whether the evidence could be considered under section 190.3, factor (b) if it believed defendant physically attacked de Maderos as she testified but still retained a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant intended to rape her. The court further reasoned that if the jury believes that the activities alleged were beyond a reasonable doubt committed by the defendant, and he threatened to kill her and attempted to kill her, that is evidence of prior act[s] involving force or violence, and it doesn't matter whether it's for the purpose of rape. On the other hand, the trial court specifically found instructions on simple assault or brandishing a weapon were not warranted based on the evidence: if you believe [de Maderos], it was either an [assault with a deadly weapon], it certainly wasn't a simple assault, or a brandishing of a weapon. That would involve conjecture. If it didn't happen the way she said it did, which amounts to at the very least an [assault with a deadly weapon], then it was nothing. We agree with the trial court's assessment of the facts and its conclusion that the instructions were not warranted under those facts. Accordingly, we need not decide whether a trial court is ever obligated to instruct on lesser offenses requested by trial counsel at a penalty phase. Moreover, any error in failing to give the requested instructions was harmless. As the People correctly point out, the issue before the jury was whether defendant used force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence. (§ 190.3, factor (b).) Even if the requested lesser included offense instructions were given and found true by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the result would necessarily be the same: defendant used or threatened to use force or violence. As the trial court expressed, If [the jury] believe[s] [de Maderos] beyond a reasonable doubt, that somebody did these things, I don't think there's any question but what [ sic ] it involves the threat of or attempt to use force or violence on another person. Under these circumstances, there is no reasonable possibility of any error in failing to instruct the jury on simple assault or brandishing a weapon affected the verdict. ( People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 433, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 301, 916 P.2d 1000.)