Court Opinion

ID: 9720109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:16:25.54993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:13.232194
License: Public Domain

POCHÉ, J .
I concur fully in the judgment of reversal and in the rationale
underlying that determination. However, I do not join in the suggestion that the trial court upon retrial should refrain from instructing upon Oakland Municipal *1068Code section 2-2.14 which provides in relevant part: “It shall be unlawful for any person to at any time fire or discharge, or cause to be fired or discharged, any gun, . . . pistol, ... or fire-arm of any kind, . . . within the limits of the City of Oakland; ...”
Appellant was tried and convicted on an information charging a violation of Penal Code section 246,1 shooting at an inhabited dwelling house. This shooting occurred in Oakland. It is thus impossible for appellant in so violating section 246 not to have violated the Oakland ordinance.
Appellant requested that the jury be instructed on a violation of Oakland Municipal Code section 2-2.14. This court validates the trial court’s refusal to give the instruction on the basis that a violation of the ordinance fits neither “the abstract statutory elements” definition nor “the accusatory pleading test” of a lesser included offense. I agree that the fit is not perfect but I fail to see how justice is served by refusing the instruction.
In my view refusal to give the requested instruction conflicts with the enunciation of the trial court’s duty as set forth in People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307 [185 Cal.Rptr. 436, 650 P.2d 311]. There, Chief Justice Bird, speaking for the majority, put it this way in a discussion of the legal underpinnings of the lesser included offense doctrine and the role of the trial court therein: “The trial court functions both as a neutral arbiter between two contesting parties and as the jury’s guide to the law. This role requires that the court fully instruct the jury on the law applicable to each particular case. ‘ “It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. [Citations.] The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” [Citation.] That obligation has been held to include giving instructions on lesser included offenses when the evidence raises a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense were present [citation], but not when there is no evidence that the offense was less than that charged. [Citations.]’ . . . The fulfillment of this obligation ensures that the jury will consider the full range of possible verdicts—not limited by the strategy, ignorance, or mistakes of the parties. The jury should not be constrained by the fact that the prosecution and defense have chosen to focus on certain theories. ‘Just as the People have no legitimate interest in obtaining a conviction of a greater offense than that established by the evidence, a defendant has no right to an acquittal when that evidence is sufficient to establish a lesser included offense. [Citation.]’ . . . Furthermore, where counsel is not aware of alternative verdicts or incorrectly believes them *1069to be irrelevant to the case, the trial court’s action will avoid an unwarranted all-or-nothing choice for the jury and will ensure that the verdict is no harsher or more lenient than the evidence merits. These policies reflect concern both for the rights of persons accused of crimes and for the overall administration of justice.” (Id., at pp. 323-324.)
Here a defendant upon hearing evidence that he shot at a residence in Oakland asked that the jury be instructed that shooting a firearm within the city limits violates the Oakland Municipal Code. Giving that instruction upon retrial “will avoid an unwarranted all-or-nothing choice for the jury and will ensure that the verdict is no harsher or more lenient than the evidence merits. ”2 (Id., at p. 324.)
I would instruct the trial court to honor appellant’s request for a jury instruction on Oakland Municipal Code section 2-2.14.

Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Appellant’s contention on appeal is that the evidence gives rise to a dispute as to whether he actually fired at the dwelling in question, or simply discharged a firearm in the vicinity but not at the dwelling.