Opinion ID: 1202713
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sua Sponte Instruction.

Text: (15) Defendant contends that in instructing the jury that it was required to find that the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of a rape, robbery, burglary, or any or all of these offenses (italics added) before it could return a finding that the special circumstance was true, the court was obligated but failed to explicate the meaning of the italicized clause. Specifically, he claims the court should have explained that there must be no cognizable interruption separating the murder and the other offense or offenses. For argument's sake we shall assume that the clause in question means what defendant says it does. Nevertheless, for the reasons that follow we are compelled to reject his point. The law applicable here is clear. The language of a statute defining a crime or defense is generally an appropriate and desirable basis for an instruction, and is ordinarily sufficient when the defendant fails to request amplification. If the jury would have no difficulty in understanding the statute without guidance, the court need do no more than instruct in statutory language. ( People v. Page (1980) 104 Cal. App.3d 569, 577 [163 Cal. Rptr. 839].) The portion of the instruction at issue in this case was drawn verbatim from Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17). Defendant, however, failed to request further amplification. Finally, a jury would have no difficulty in understanding the statutory language without guidance. Accordingly, the court was not obligated to explicate the clauses in question.