Opinion ID: 1169826
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial Court's Refusal to Give Defendant's Requested Instructions

Text: (23a) Defendant faults the trial court for refusing to give jury instructions on aider and abettor liability, a special circumstance instruction referring to defendant as an accomplice, and an instruction telling the jury that it should not consider why another person was not being prosecuted. He contends that such instructions were required because evidence showed that an other man was seen leaving the building in which Sharon Rawls's body was found shortly before the police saw defendant at the building. Defendant requested instructions defining principals (CALJIC No. 3.00 (1984 rev.)), aiding and abetting (CALJIC No. 3.01 (1984 rev.)), and first degree felony-murder liability as an aider and abettor (CALJIC No. 8.27 (1984 rev.)). Defense counsel also asked that the introductory instruction on special circumstances (CALJIC No. 8.80 (1984 rev.)) include paragraphs stating that if defendant was an accomplice and not the actual killer of Rawls, the jury could not find the special circumstance allegations true unless it concluded that defendant acted with intent to kill. In addition, defendant requested a jury instruction (CALJIC No. 2.11.5 (1984 rev.)) that there was evidence of possible involvement of a person other than defendant as to the crimes for which defendant was on trial, but that the jury was not to consider why that person was not being prosecuted. The trial court refused to give the proposed instructions. (24) A trial court must give a requested instruction only if it is supported by substantial evidence, that is, evidence sufficient to deserve jury consideration. ( People v. Williams (1992) 4 Cal.4th 354, 361 [14 Cal. Rptr.2d 441, 841 P.2d 961]; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684 & fn. 12 [160 Cal. Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1].) As we have stressed in a recent case, unsupported theories should not be presented to the jury. ( People v. Guiton, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1131.) (23b) Here, the trial court correctly determined that the evidence did not support the instructions requested by the defense and therefore should not be given. (25) A person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he or she, acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator; and (2) the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the offense, (3) by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates, the commission of the crime. ( People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 561 [199 Cal. Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318].) (23c) Defendant notes that because shortly after the murder of Sharon Rawls a man other than defendant was seen leaving the abandoned building in which the murder occurred, that man (never located or identified) could have killed Rawls with defendant's assistance. In support, defendant points out that as the man was leaving the building he was holding his shoes in his hand and his hair was in disarray, that he looked nervous when confronted by witness Foster, and that semen belonging to someone other than defendant was found in Rawls's vagina and on her clothes. This evidence was insufficient to require the trial court to instruct the jury on the possibility that defendant aided and abetted the other man in killing Rawls. Because Rawls was a prostitute, the presence on her clothes and in her vagina of semen not belonging to defendant is of little significance. That the other man was carrying his shoes in his hand and that his hair was in disarray are facts consistent with his explanation to witness Foster that he had been sleeping in the abandoned building, and his nervousness was understandable given that Foster was a large man wielding a machete. Because defendant's claim that the other man might have been involved in the killing rests on pure speculation, rather than substantial evidence, the trial court did not err in refusing to give the instructions requested by defendant.