Opinion ID: 1226896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Instructions on Lesser Included Offenses and Partial Verdicts as to Homicide

Text: The trial court instructed the jury, in accordance with the standard instruction set out in CALJIC No. 17.10 (4th ed. 1979 (1982 rev.)), that it could find defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of the lesser included offenses of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. It also told the panel, in conformity with CALJIC No. 8.75 (4th ed. 1979 (1982 new)), that it could return partial verdicts as to homicide. Following our decision in Stone v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 503 [183 Cal. Rptr. 647, 646 P.2d 809], we held in People v. Kurtzman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 322, 324-325 [250 Cal. Rptr. 244, 758 P.2d 572], that a trial court may restrict[ ] a jury from returning a verdict on a lesser included offense before acquitting on a greater offense but may not preclude a jury from considering lesser offenses during its deliberations. (Italics in original.) (33) Defendant contends that by instructing the jury as it did, the trial court erred under state law as well as the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, including the impartial-jury-trial and due process clauses. Crucial to his claim is the assertion that the instructions in question disrupt[ed] and coerc[ed] the jury's consideration of the evidence bearing on [his] specific intent. The claim is without merit. In our view, defendant's assertion is unsound. On this record, a reasonable juror would have understood the challenged instructions to govern how the panel was to return its verdicts on homicide, and not to affect how it was to deliberate on the matter. Certainly, such a juror could not have construed the charge so as to interfere in any significant way with his consideration of the evidence. (Compare People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 241-242 [253 Cal. Rptr. 55, 763 P.2d 906] [rejecting a claim of error against similar instructions].) Defendant argues to the contrary, but he is unpersuasive. Contrary to his position, the peculiar circumstances of his particular trial do not undermine our conclusion. Neither do any other factors. [10]