Court Opinion

ID: 9565993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:31:33.097522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:30.799290
License: Public Domain

Springer, J.,
dissenting:
Stroup’s defense in this case is that he was defending himself, or, more particularly, that he was defending his “habitation,” in this case a tent. Dixon kept intruding into Stroup’s tent, assaulting Stroup and his tent-mate and “acting like a madman,” until, on the fifth break-in, Stroup shot Dixon.
Stroup, properly and understandably, asked the trial court to instruct the jury that if it found him to be acting in his own defense, the jury had a “duty to return a verdict of not guilty.” The trial court refused to give such an instruction. By refusing to tell the jury that it should acquit Stroup if it found self defense or “defense of habitation,” Stroup was denied a fair trial.
The trial court did give to the jury a technical definition of “justifiable homicide,” but the court refused to go further and advise the jury that if self-defense or defense of habitation were found, it should then acquit the defendant. The trial court’s technical instruction defining justifiable homicide may have had some meaning to a law student, but it was of no use to the jury absent the specific instruction that this kind of homicide must result in a not guilty verdict.1 The Majority apparently sees *530nothing wrong with refusing to instruct the jury that a jury finding of justifiable homicide must result in acquittal, and it does not even discuss the point. I would reverse this case based on my conviction that if the jury had been instructed properly, it would have been aware of its “duty to return a verdict of not guilty” and would have returned such a verdict.

 The California Criminal form jury instructions set forth the following jury instruction to be given “when the evidence to support the issue of justification or excuse is properly presented in a homicide case”:
Upon a trial of a charge of murder, a killing is lawful, if it was [justifiable] [excusable]. The burden is on the prosecution to prove *530beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was unlawful, that is, not [justifiable] [excusable]. If you have a reasonable doubt that the homicide was unlawful, you must find the defendant not guilty.
California Jury Instructions, Criminal, 5.15 (5th ed. 1988) (“CALJIC”) (emphasis added). This is all Stroup wanted in this case, and I believe that he was entitled to have the jury instructed in such a mannen