Opinion ID: 2517324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Failure to Instruct on Theft As a Lesser Included Offense

Text: (11) Defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on theft as a lesser included offense of robbery. [9] He claims there was substantial evidence that he formed the intent to steal only after shooting Contreras, in which case there would have been no robbery. If intent to steal arose only after the victim was assaulted, the robbery element of stealing by force or fear is absent. ( People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1055-1056 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 929 P.2d 544]; see also, e.g., People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 737 [94 Cal.Rptr.2d 396, 996 P.2d 46].) However, the record in this case does not support defendant's argument. Defendant relies on the following facts. The evidence showed that he returned to the park with a gun following a dispute with the men gathered there. He approached Calleros and tried to shoot him. When the gun failed to discharge, defendant fired a shot into the air. Calleros ran away and heard a single shot, followed by someone screaming give me the money. Defendant asserts that Calleros's testimony arguably constitutes evidence supporting the notion that an intent and attempt to steal arose only after the shooting of Contreras. However, given that defendant's first shot was into the air, and that Contreras was shot three times in quick succession, Calleros's testimony in no way suggests that the murder preceded any demand for money. Nor did the fact that defendant's first act upon his return was to assault Calleros tend to show that he did not also intend to rob the men in the park. Defendant bases his argument primarily on the testimony of Reynaldo Villatoro, who said that defendant brought his arm down and shot at Contreras maybe a second after firing into the air. However, viewed in its entirety Villatoro's testimony is consistent with that of the other witnesses, all of whom agreed that a robbery was in progress when Contreras was shot. Villatoro testified that he was being robbed by defendant's companion when Contreras was shot, and that Reyes had already been robbed. Villatoro did not see anything taken from Contreras, because he was paying attention to defendant's companion. He said that his money was taken before the final shot was fired at Contreras, and that after he was robbed the companion told defendant, I have the money. Let's go. The two men then ran away. It is true that, unlike the other witnesses, Villatoro did not observe any attempt to steal from Contreras, either before or after the shooting. It is also true that, in response to a series of questions that appeared to confuse him, Villatoro gave answers that, considered in isolation, might suggest Contreras was shot before Reyes and Villatoro were robbed. During cross-examination, Villatoro said Contreras was shot twice while standing and again as he was falling to the ground, at which time Villatoro stopped watching because he was being robbed by defendant's companion. The following exchange then took place: Q. Now, after the other person took your money, did he take somebody else's money? A. From Efren [Reyes]. Q. Okay. Was that before or after you? A. Before me. Q. And was Don Julian [Contreras] already on the ground at this time? A. Yes. Q. Okay, some money was taken from Efren and you in that order? A Yes. What? Excuse me one moment. What do you mean in that order? Q. Well, the first person who had money taken was Efren? A. Yes. Q. And then money was taken from you? A. Yes. Shortly thereafter, Villatoro confirmed that he was robbed by defendant's companion just as Contreras fell to the ground. On this record, the jury could not reasonably have concluded that the shooting preceded the robbery. The witnesses gave varying accounts of who was robbed first; according to Sanchez, it was Villatoro; according to Juan Quijas, the first thing that happened when defendant approached the group was that his friend started to take the money from everybody, but Quijas did not notice who the first victim was; according to Reyes, defendant and his companion first tried to take Contreras's wallet. What was clear from all the accounts was that the shooting occurred during the robbery. One statement by Villatoro indicating that Contreras was on the ground, already shot for the last time, when Reyes was robbed, did not constitute a substantial contradiction of the general account. Villatoro immediately made it clear that it was he who was being robbed as Contreras fell, and that Reyes had already been victimized. (12) [T]he existence of ` any evidence, no matter how weak' will not justify instructions on a lesser included offense, but such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is `substantial enough to merit consideration' by the jury. [Citations.] `Substantial evidence' in this context is `evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could ... conclude[]' that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed. [Citations.] ( People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 162 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094]; accord, e.g., People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 50 [63 Cal.Rptr.3d 896, 163 P.3d 896].) The evidence here did not require instruction on theft as a lesser included offense of robbery. [10]