Court Opinion

ID: 9722538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:38:24.592936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:36.735901
License: Public Domain

SIMS, J.
I concur in all aspects of the majority opinion but write separately to address defendant’s contention of instructional error.
Defendant contends the court had a sua sponte duty to give instructions relating her evidence of mental disease to the mental states required for various specie of homicide—from murder to manslaughter. The argument is predicated on a series of California Supreme Court cases promulgating a duty to give instructions relating the defense of diminished capacity to such mental states. (See, e.g., People v. Mosher (1969) 1 Cal.3d 379, 389-393 [82 Cal.Rptr. 379, 461 P.2d 659]; People v. Castillo (1969) 70 Cal.2d 264, 270 [74 Cal.Rptr. 385, 449 P.2d 449]; People v. Conley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 310, 324, fn. 4 [49 Cal.Rptr. 815, 411 P.2d 911].)
These cases represent variations of the familiar rule that a trial court has a sua sponte duty to give instructions relating a recognized defense to ele*343ments of a charged offense. (People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 716 [112 Cal.Rptr. 1, 518 P.2d 913].) As my colleagues correctly note, the defense of diminished capacity has been abolished. A defendant may still defend against a charge of homicide by presenting evidence of mental disease or defect sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt that he or she in fact had the requisite mental state at the time of the offense. (See People v. Jackson (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 961, 968 [199 Cal.Rptr. 848].)1 However, when a defendant presents evidence to attempt to negate or rebut the prosecution’s proof of an element of the offense, a defendant is not presenting a special defense invoking sua sponte instructional duties. While a trial court may well have a duty to give a “pinpoint” instruction relating such evidence to the elements of the offense and to the jury’s duty to acquit if the evidence produces a reasonable doubt, such “pinpoint” instructions are not required to be given sua sponte and must be given only upon request. (See People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143, 158-159 [167 Cal.Rptr. 844, 616 P.2d 826]; People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 885 [123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247, 92 A.L.R.3d 845]; People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180, 190 [84 Cal.Rptr. 711, 465 P.2d 847]; People v. Adrian (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 335, 339 [185 Cal.Rptr. 506].) Since no such instructions were requested here, there was no error.
Petitions for a rehearing were denied June 25, 1985, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 12, 1985.

 Indeed, a contrary conclusion would prohibit a defendant from presenting reliable and relevant evidence to controvert the charge in violation of federal constitutional rights to due process of law. (See Hendershott v. People (Colo. 1982) 653 P.2d 385.)