Opinion ID: 1379313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: refusal to grant jury's request for further instruction

Text: (13a) Defendant contends he was prejudiced by the trial court's telling the jury, in response to the jury's request for an explanation of an instruction, that none of the instructions would be explained. He claims the court erred both in refusing to answer the particular inquiry and in precluding the jury from asking further questions about the instructions. The jury commenced deliberations on the issues of guilt and special circumstances in the early afternoon. Shortly thereafter the jury requested, and was sent, certain exhibits and a copy of the jury instructions. At the end of the day, the jury submitted a note asking, [C]ould we have defined whether `the first degree murder' constitutes the act as a whole or the defendant's participation in said act. Please explain in A.M. The parties now agree that this question referred to the instruction defining deliberate and premeditated murder, CALJIC No. 8.20. After the jury had been excused, the court stated to counsel: A message was given to the Court by the jury asking for explanation of the jury instructions which, of course, is typical whenever you send instructions into the jury room. [¶] You are advised that the court is not going to explain any instructions. They either get it figured out for themselves or not. [¶] Every time a judge opens his big mouth and tries to explain what an instruction means, he puts his foot in it and the Appellate Court promptly bites it off. [¶] There will be no explanation of any of those jury instructions that went into that jury room, just so you know. That's what is going to be told to them. Before excusing the jury, the court told counsel they need not be present when the jury reconvened the next morning. Defendant personally waived his right to be present at that time. When the jury reconvened at 9 a.m., the court told them as follows: Ladies and gentlemen, also in addition to your request concerning an instruction, there is and can be no explanation of the instructions. You have to just work with them as they are printed. [¶] This is one of the reasons we do not send, ordinarily, instructions into the jury room, because people start ... picking them apart. [¶] You are going to have to consider the instructions as a whole as one of those instructions will ... advise you, some of the instructions will apply, some of the instructions will not. [¶] All of those instructions have to be considered as a whole. Do the best you can with them. The jury then resumed deliberations and at 2 p.m. returned its verdict. Defendant contends the court's refusal to further explain the instructions violated section 1138, which provides that when the jury desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the case, ... the information required must be given.... (14) The court has a primary duty to help the jury understand the legal principles it is asked to apply. ( People v. Thompkins (1987) 195 Cal. App.3d 244, 250-251 [240 Cal. Rptr. 516].) This does not mean the court must always elaborate on the standard instructions. Where the original instructions are themselves full and complete, the court has discretion under section 1138 to determine what additional explanations are sufficient to satisfy the jury's request for information. ( People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1213 [275 Cal. Rptr. 729, 800 P.2d 1159].) Indeed, comments diverging from the standard are often risky. (E.g., People v. Lee (1979) 92 Cal. App.3d 707, 716 [155 Cal. Rptr. 128].) The trial court was understandably reluctant to strike out on its own. But a court must do more than figuratively throw up its hands and tell the jury it cannot help. It must at least consider how it can best aid the jury. It should decide as to each jury question whether further explanation is desirable, or whether it should merely reiterate the instructions already given. This court did not do so. (13b) The error, however, was harmless. A violation of section 1138 does not warrant reversal unless prejudice is shown. ( People v. Kageler (1973) 32 Cal. App.3d 738, 746 [108 Cal. Rptr. 235].) Defendant has not shown prejudice. There was no possible prejudice to defendant from the court's refusal to answer the jury's specific question whether `the first degree murder' constitutes the act as a whole or the defendant's participation in said act. The instruction on deliberate and premeditated murder (CALJIC No. 8.20), to which the question referred, described the mental states required for guilt of the defendant or the slayer. The jury seems to have been wondering how those requirements would apply if the defendant's participation in said act [of first degree murder] was only as an aider and abettor. The aiding and abetting instructions, as already explained, authorized a guilty verdict against one who aided the perpetration of the murder with the intent to facilitate its commission, together with knowledge of the perpetrator's criminal purpose. If the jury were to attempt to qualify the elements of guilt as an aider and abettor by including additional ingredients from CALJIC No. 8.20, the only likely prejudice would be to the prosecution, not the defense. Thus, defendant cannot have been prejudiced by the court's refusal to answer the jury's question. Defendant also contends the court's response may have discouraged the jury from asking further questions. This, however, is speculation, not proof of prejudice. Nothing in the record suggests the jury was confused as to any other point of law, and certainly not adversly to defendant. As in People v. Kageler, supra, 32 Cal. App.3d at page 746, defendant has not shown prejudice.