Opinion ID: 2590211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Aiding and Abetting, Accessory Liability, and Lesser Related Offenses

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court erred in refusing his request for jury instructions on principles of aiding and abetting, as pertinent to the Hall and Loggins murders. He contends further the trial court should have instructed the jury on aiding and abetting with respect to the Hughes, Young, Keith and Klingbeil murders despite the lack of a request below, suggesting his trial counsel's failure to request such instructions constituted ineffective assistance requiring reversal of those convictions. He also asserts the trial court erred in refusing his request for instructions on accessory liability. Finally, he contends that, had the jury been properly instructed as to aiding and abetting principles and the law of accessories, it should, additionally, have been instructed on intent to kill. Defendant's contentions lack merit. The trial court must instruct on lesser offenses necessarily included in the charged offense if there is substantial evidence the defendant is guilty only of the lesser. ( People v. Birks (1998) 19 Cal.4th 108, 118, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 848, 960 P.2d 1073.) On the other hand, if there is no proof, other than an unexplainable rejection of the prosecution's evidence, that the offense was less than that charged, such instructions shall not be given. ( People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 323-324, 185 Cal.Rptr. 436, 650 P.2d 311.) Citing People v. Schader (1965) 62 Cal.2d 716, 731-732, 44 Cal.Rptr. 193, 401 P.2d 665, People v. Burnham (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1134, 1141-1143, 1151, 222 Cal.Rptr. 630, and People v. Lemus (1988) 203 Cal. App.3d 470, 477, 249 Cal.Rptr. 897, defendant contends that, to trigger the necessity of an instruction on aiding and abetting, this substantial evidence may be incredible and not of a character to inspire belief because the jury, not the trial court, is to determine the credibility of witnesses. Unlike in the cited cases, however, the record before us contains no evidence, as distinct from mere speculation, that any other person was involved in the killings charged to defendant. (See People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 942, 13 Cal. Rptr.2d 259, 838 P.2d 1212 [Speculation is an insufficient basis upon which to require the trial court to give an instruction on a lesser included offense.].) Defendant asserts his small size, relative to Hall and Loggins, made it unlikely he, acting alone, could have placed the bodies in the locations where they were found. He also notes that the prosecution relied, to prove guilt, on the list, which was prepared after the crimes it purportedly memorialized. These circumstances, however, simply do not amount to evidence of another's participation warranting aiding and abetting instructions, nor do they suggest defendant's participation was limited to rendering after-the-fact assistance. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing the requested instructions. For this reason, too, we reject defendant's contention that his convictions on the charges tried under the 1977 death penalty law (the Hughes, Young, Keith and Klingbeil offenses) are invalid for want of an instruction on aiding and abetting. Although it is true that death eligibility under the 1977 law required a defendant to have been personally present and to have personally participated in the killing, the record in this case lacks any evidence suggesting defendant merely aided or abetted another principal in the offenses or assisted after the fact. Likewise, the lack of such evidence means the absence of aider-abettor instructions cannot invalidate special circumstance findings requiring intent to kill for persons who did not commit the actual killing. (See People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1138-1148, 240 Cal. Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306.) Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on accessory after the fact (ї 32) as a lesser related offense to murder in connection with those counts where the evidence showed some connection between defendant and the victim, but no evidence showed the degree of his involvement in the killing. We disagree: Even were there evidence supporting a theory of accessory liability, which the trial court properly found lacking, defendant was not entitled to instructions on lesser related offenses. ( People v. Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 136, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 848, 960 P.2d 1073, retrospectively overruling People v. Geiger (1984) 35 Cal.3d 510,199 Cal.Rptr. 45, 674 P.2d 1303.) Finally, it should be clear from the foregoing discussion that, given the correctness, on this record, of the trial court's declining to instruct on principles of aider-abettor and accessory liability, defendant's related claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and constitutional error under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and the rule of Beck v. Alabama (1980) 447 U.S. 625, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 also must fail.