Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instructional error on attempted sodomy

Text: Defendant contends that the jury instruction on attempted sodomy was erroneous as a matter of state and federal law, because the instruction did not inform the jury it must find as elements that the act had been attempted without the other party's consent and with force, and to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [13] The trial court instructed the jurors pursuant to former CALJIC No. 8.84.1.2, informing them that they could consider as an aggravating circumstance evidence of attempted sodomy involving the express use of force or violence, if proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant did not request instruction on the elements of sodomy. We repeatedly have held that a trial court does not have an obligation sua sponte to instruct at the penalty phase of a capital trial on the elements of offenses not currently charged. ( People v. Hawkins, supra, 10 Cal.4th 920, 963-964, 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 636, 897 P.2d 574.) As we also have explained, a defendant may have tactical reasons for declining to request such instructions in order not to emphasize unduly these crimes to the jury. ( Hawkins, at pp. 963-964, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 897 P.2d 574; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 48-9, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 593, 859 P.2d 673; People v. Tuilaepa, supra, 4 Cal.4th 569, 591-592, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142.) Accordingly, the trial court did not err.