Opinion ID: 2588259
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pinpoint instruction on after-formed intent

Text: Defendant asked the trial court to give this pinpoint instruction: If defendant did not conceive his intent to steal either before committing the act of force against Bud Smith, or during the commission of the act, then the taking cannot form the basis for the special circumstance allegation, or a finding of first degree felony murder. (See People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 54, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.) This instruction was consistent with the defense theory that defendant only decided to steal Smith's cash after he killed Smith, because he then needed money to escape. The trial court refused to give the instruction, but it instructed the jury that in the crime of robbery, there must exist in the mind of the robber at the time the force is applied the specific intent to commit such crime and to permanently deprive the owner of his property. (Italics added.) The trial court did not err by refusing to give defendant's special instruction, which redundantly instructed on when defendant must form an intent to rob. Defendant also contends that the trial court's refusal to give his pinpoint instruction when combined with the prosecutor's erroneous description of the force or fear element of robbery (see ante, 122 Cal. Rptr.2d pp. 566-67, 50 P.3d pp. 350-51) permitted the jury to ignore his defense of after-formed intent. We disagree. While the prosecutor's argument misstated the law, it was directed not to the issue of when defendant formed an intent to rob Smith, but instead to the force or fear element of that robbery.