Opinion ID: 2633651
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter

Text: Defendant asserts the trial court erred in failing to instruct on its own motion on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter in relation to count one, the Clark count. Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought and without an intent to kill. (CALJIC No. 8.45 (Jan.1987 rev.) (4th ed.1979).) A verdict of involuntary manslaughter is warranted where the defendant demonstrates that because of his mental illness ... he did not in fact form the intent unlawfully to kill (i.e., did not have malice aforethought). ( People v. Saille, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1117, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364, 820 P.2d 588.) An instruction on involuntary manslaughter is required whenever there is substantial evidence indicating the defendant did not actually form the intent to kill. ( People v. Webber (1991) 228 Cal. App.3d 1146, 1162, 279 Cal.Rptr. 437; see People v. Ray (1975) 14 Cal.3d 20, 28-29, 120 Cal.Rptr. 377, 533 P.2d 1017.) Assuming the trial court erred in failing to instruct on involuntary manslaughter, any error was harmless. In addition to being fully instructed on first degree premeditated murder, the jury also was instructed on the lesser included offenses of implied malice second degree murder and heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter, both of which require higher degrees of culpability than does the offense of involuntary manslaughter. The jury rejected the lesser options and found defendant guilty of first degree premeditated murder. Under the circumstances, there is no reasonable probability that, had the jury been instructed on involuntary manslaughter, it would have chosen that option.