Opinion ID: 1179588
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Instructions on torture murder.

Text: (38) The trial court instructed the jury that it could find first degree murder based on the infliction of torture if two requirements were met: (1) the act or acts which cause the death must involve a high degree of probability of death, and (2) the defendant must commit such act or acts with a wilful, deliberate and premeditated intent to inflict extreme and prolonged pain. Defendant claims such instructions are incomplete because they omit the purpose of the torture. In People v. Tubby (1949) 34 Cal.2d 72, 76 [207 P.2d 51], we defined murder by torture as requiring an intent to cause cruel suffering either for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or to satisfy some other untoward propensity. (P. 77.) People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal.3d 539 [128 Cal. Rptr. 161, 546 P.2d 665, 83 A.L.R.3d 1206], however, omitted mention of the purpose of the torture, and defined it as murder conmitted with a wilful, deliberate, and premeditated intent to inflict extreme and prolonged pain. (P. 546.) Six months after we filed People v. Steger , however, People v. Wiley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 162 [133 Cal. Rptr. 135, 554 P.2d 881] quoted Tubby, supra, 34 Cal.2d 72, with approval (18 Cal.3d at pp. 172-173) and endorsed a jury instruction which required that defendant commit such act or acts with the intent to cause cruel pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion or for any other sadistic purpose. (P. 168.) We explained in a footnote that Steger did not define all the elements of murder by torture, but was concerned only with establishing that the act of torture must be premeditated. (18 Cal.3d at p. 173, fn. 4.) A later decision, People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 267 [221 Cal. Rptr. 794, 710 P.2d 861], endorsed the Wiley definition of murder by torture, and relied upon it to cure deficiencies in the instructions on torture-murder special circumstances. When defendant was tried in 1981, the court apparently overlooked both Wiley, supra, 18 Cal.3d 162, and the CALJIC instruction which was based on Wiley, and instructed in the language of People v. Steger, supra, 16 Cal.3d 539. We agree with defendant that this instruction was erroneously incomplete. It is apparent, however, that defendant was not prejudiced under any applicable standard of prejudice, for while defendant disputes how many victims were tortured, it is undisputed that whatever torture was inflicted was done for a sadistic purpose.