Opinion ID: 1453508
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lying-in-wait Instruction

Text: (47) The court did not originally instruct the penalty jury on the elements of the special circumstance. During deliberations, the jury asked for the definition of lying in wait. The court gave the then-standard lying-in-wait instruction, which differed somewhat from the one the court gave at the guilt trial. [16] Defendant objected to both lying-in-wait instructions, but, if either were given, he preferred the one which the court gave. Defendant reiterates the arguments regarding lying in wait which we have previously rejected. ( Ante, at pt. II. B. 1. a.) In addition, contrary to his position at trial, he now asserts the new instruction (and the current standard instruction, see CALJIC No. 8.81.15 (5th ed. 1989)) was [w]orse than the previous instruction in that the mens rea only had to be equivalent to `premeditation or deliberation.' (Italics by defendant.) This was not error. ( People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589, 614-615 [244 Cal. Rptr. 200, 749 P.2d 854].)