Opinion ID: 1405957
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Ruling in Stone v. Superior Court

Text: This case is the inevitable successor to Stone v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.3d 503. In that case we held that a trial court is constitutionally obligated to afford the jury an opportunity to render a partial verdict of acquittal on a greater offense when the jury is deadlocked only on an uncharged lesser included offense. Failure to do so will cause a subsequently declared mistrial to be without legal necessity. ( Id. at p. 519.) Stone went on to suggest a number of procedures a trial court might use in guiding a jury charged with the task of reaching a verdict on greater and lesser included offenses. It indicated as a judicially declared rule of criminal procedure that: [¶] When a trial judge has instructed a jury on a charged offense and on an uncharged lesser included offense, one appropriate course of action would be to provide the jury with forms for a verdict of guilty or not guilty as to each offense. The jury must be cautioned, of course, that it should first decide whether the defendant is guilty of the greater offense before considering the lesser offense, and that if it finds the defendant guilty of the greater offense, or if it is unable to agree on that offense, it should not return a verdict on the lesser offense. (31 Cal.3d at p. 519.) This was not a mandatory procedure, however, and Stone also indicated that trial courts retained the discretion to let a case go to the jury without a specific structure for the return of verdicts. It stated in this regard: Alternatively, the court may decide to wait and see whether the jury is unable to reach a verdict; if it is, the court should then inquire whether the jury has been able to eliminate any offense. If the jury declares itself hopelessly deadlocked on the lesser offense yet unanimous for acquittal on the greater offense, and the court is satisfied that the jury is not merely expressing a tentative vote but has completed its deliberations, the court must formally accept a partial verdict on the greater offense. It is within the discretion of the court to order further deliberations if it perceives a reasonable probability that a verdict will be reached that will dispose of the entire proceeding. (31 Cal.3d at pp. 519-520.) Stone addressed the situation in which the jury was unanimous on the greater offense but in disagreement on the lesser. This inevitably leads to the question in the present case  what if the situation is reversed and disagreement is limited to the greater offense? (1) As discussed hereafter, we conclude that Stone should be read to authorize an instruction that the jury may not return a verdict on the lesser offense unless it has agreed beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is not guilty of the greater crime charged, but it should not be interpreted to prohibit a jury from considering or discussing the lesser offenses before returning a verdict on the greater offense.