WPCL  pJYYJ9R\/2?CN<(4͎+#fjAnEFIkʖ i7ɦܦû7ywbCև sNJGcu3TIp-XO;( ^$ջ"菕i0(; 3 ib ^&{CU[> bpuf\#gyZRoY~v~;~:[h]@(M8p("><<4,,!B#  98&Br]?[8*E-P3Hu0ܗځ5 XWd}m`xx'R&:jav#g3uӺB~edd*wCmI/6_?O0!yפlRng+̥Q卵UF2DbyK ː:| YC]2YltiSIU: %8 0C> 0 \! r}  9 b SjilW,Q !#r'T(R)!<*]+%?-d.uW0T1 > 3 ^3 ~4856n6 04}7N7w7477 B7 m7UF8G8 0e 9#r9;<UNT@UN@^ @Q@ tMEE :G zGnH >vH FH >H >8IXvI 0NInJ:JJpJ64KvjK:K:L:TL<6X9`("Courier 10cpiX($      s2$  Ӏ  1    _ ` TheCaliforniaAppellateProject(SanFrancisco)  compilesmaterialsondeathpenaltyandspecialcircumstances  issues.(9!2s2$ %T!   Ӏ  0  I. INTRODUCTION: SCOPE OF THESE MATERIALSII. BLACK-LETTER LAW ON JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN GENERAL  s2$  Ӏ  2    _ ` Seediscussionof_Saille_inconnectionwithexpress  malice,infra,atp.41.  s2$  Ӏ  4    _ ` Asdiscussedmorefullyinthesectiononinvoluntary  manslaughter,infra,toanextentinvoluntarymanslaughtermay  alsopossiblybeacatchallcategoryforcertainhomicideswhich \  donotfitinthedefinedcategoriesofmurderandmanslaughter. / s2$  Ӏ  5    _ ` Note,however,thatactivelyandintentionally  assistingapersontocommitsuicidebyparticipatinginthe  suicideitselfismurder.(Peoplev.Cleaves(1991)229 \ Cal.App.3d367.)Cleavesalsonotesthatmerelyfurnishingthe 2 meansofsuicideisnotmurder,butisaviolationofPenalCode X 401(assistingsuicide). X s2$  Ӏ  6    _ ` The_Beardslee_courtdidnotspecificallyapprove  _Dellinger_,itjustdistinguishedit._Dellinger_hasbeen  criticizedinPeoplev.Davis(1992)8_Cal.App_.4th28andPeople \ v.Sutherland(1993)17_Cal.App_.4th602,609611.  s2$  Ӏ  7    _ ` Thedoctrineisalsoconfusinginnonhomicide  contexts.Thereisasplitofauthorityonthequestionwhether  thedoctrineoftransferredintentappliestochargesofassault \ and/orassaultwithadeadlyweapon.(ComparePeoplev.Lee 2 (1994)28Cal.App.4th1724[doctrinedoesnotapplytoassault X sinceassaultisageneralintentcrime],withPeoplev.Cotton . (1980)113Cal.App.3d294andPeoplev.Williams(1980)102   Cal.App.3d1018[doctrineapplies,withcertainlimitations].) s2$  Ӏ  8    _ ` Provocationmayalsoreduceakillingtomanslaughter.  Seediscussionofvoluntarymanslaughter,infra. _ s2$  Ӏ  9    _ ` Thisdiscussionconcernsfirstdegreemurdercommitted  bythemeansofadestructivedevice,asdefinedinPenalCode  189.Thediscussiondoesnotinvolvethespecialcircumstance \ ofkillingbymeansofadestructivedevice,asdefinedinPenal 2 Code190.2(a)(6).Requirementsforspecialcircumstancesare X notalwaysidenticaltotherequirementsforfirstdegreemurder. M s2$  Ӏ  10    _ ` Thisdiscussionconcernsfirstdegreemurdercommitted  bythemeansoflyinginwait,asdefinedinPenalCode189.  Thediscussiondoesnotinvolvethespecialcircumstanceof \ killingwhilelyinginwait,asdefinedinPenalCode 2 190.2(a)(15).Requirementsforspecialcircumstancesarenot X alwaysidenticaltotherequirementsforfirstdegreemurder.  s2$  Ӏ  11    _ ` Aseriesofcasesconcerningthespecialcircumstance  oflyinginwaithavenotedthat"Ifacognizableinterruption  separatestheperiodoflyinginwaitfromtheperiodduring \ whichthekillingtakesplace,thecircumstancescallingforthe 2 ultimatepenaltydonotexist."(Dominov.SuperiorCourt(1982) X 129Cal.App.3d1000,1011;Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Sims)(1986) . 185Cal.App.3d471,474.)However,thesecasesturnonthe   differentwordingofthespecialcircumstancestatute,anditis   notcertainwhattypesofbreakinthechainoflyinginwait `  wouldconstituteadefensetofirstdegreemurderbylyingin 6   wait.Asnotedintext,thecourtshaveupheldCALJIC8.25's  \  statementthatthemurdermustbe"immediatelypreceded"bythe  2  lyinginwait. s2$  Ӏ  12    _ ` Irelandisdiscussedinmoredetailinthesectionon  seconddegreefelonymurder,infra. G s2$  Ӏ  13    _ ` Thisdiscussionconcernsfirstdegreemurdercommitted  bythemeansoftorture,asdefinedinPenalCode189.The  discussiondoesnotinvolvethespecialcircumstanceofkilling \ bymeansoftorture,asdefinedinPenalCode190.2(a)(18). 2 Requirementsforspecialcircumstancesarenotalwaysidentical X totherequirementsforfirstdegreemurder. s2$  Ӏ  14    _ ` Cert.grantedonanunrelatedissue,judgmentaffirmed,  114S.Ct.2630.  s2$  Ӏ  21    _KidnappingnowislistedinPenalCode189amongthe  feloniesuponwhichaconvictionforfirstdegreemurdercanbe  based.Aggravated_kidnappings_,suchas_kidnappings_Ԁforrobbery, \ ransom,extortionorrewardalsomayqualify.  s2$  Ӏ  16    _ ` Thisdiscussionconcernsfirstdegreefelonymurderas  definedinPenalCode189.Thediscussiondoesnotinvolvethe  specialcircumstanceofkillingbymeansoffelonymurder,as \ definedinPenalCode190.2(a)(17).Requirementsforspecial 2 circumstancesarenotalwaysidenticaltotherequirementsfor X firstdegreemurder. .   Pleasenotethatthediscussioninthissectiondoesnot   includeallissuesdirectlyrelatingtoaider/abettorliability.   Atreatmentofvicariousliabilityisbeyondthescopeofthese `  materials;vicariousliabilitywillbediscussedinthepanel 6   discussionatFDAP'sseminar. s2$  Ӏ  17    _ ` Cert.grantedonanunrelatedissue,judgmentaffirmed,  114S.Ct.2630. s2$  Ӏ  18    _ ` SeediscussionoftheIrelanddoctrineinconnection  withseconddegreefelonymurder,infra. s2$  Ӏ  19    _ ` OverruledonanunrelatedpointinPeoplev.Cahill  (1993)5Cal.4th478.  s2$  Ӏ  20    _ ` CALJIC8.31alsostatesthesamedefinitionofmalice  ininstructingthejuryonthedefinitionofseconddegree  murder.  s2$  Ӏ  22    _ ` Notethatin_Suniga_v._Bunnell_(9thCir.1993)998F.2d  664,667,thecourtfoundthattheIrelanddoctrine,whilea  stateruleandnotaconstitutionalone,"isbasedupon \ considerationsofpolicyandjustice."  s2$  Ӏ  23    _ ` SeediscussionofPeoplev._Saille_inconnectionwith  expressmalice,supra,atpage41.  s2$  Ӏ  24    _ ` Thequestionoftheintentneededforassaultisbeyond  thescopeofthesematerials.Ithasbeenthesubjectofrecent  caselaw.(SeePeoplev._Colantuono_(1994)7Cal.4th206;People \ v.Lee(1994)28_Cal.App_.4th1724.) k s2$  Ӏ  26    _ ` Thecourtnotedthattheformerterm"honest"belief  maybeconfusing,implyingthatthebeliefmustbeobjectively  reasonable;instead,thecourtsubstitutedtheterm"actual" \ belief. J s2$  Ӏ  27    _ ` Burroughswasclarifiedonadifferentissue(testfor  determiningwhetherafelonyisinherentlydangerous)inPeople  v.Patterson(1989)49Cal.3d615.A. SUA SPONTE INSTRUCTIONS  s2$  Ӏ  28    _ ` GonzalezwasdisapprovedonadifferentpointinPeople  v._Kurtzman_(1988)46Cal.3d322.  s2$  Ӏ  29    _ ` DisapprovedonanothergroundinPeoplev._Sumstine_  (1984)36Cal.3d909. . s2$  Ӏ  30    _ ` Therewould,ofcourse,alsobeaquestionwhether,if  Dewberryerrorwerefoundtoexistinsuchasituation,theerror  wasprejudicial.3|x<6X9`("Courier 10cpiXx6X@8;X@( T$  .z dU<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular1, 2, 3,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#3&2Quick 1.-  .0 -HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60  s2$  Ӏ  3    _ԀThereare,however,exceptionstotherule.The  presumptioncontrols [_i]n_Ԁtheabsenceofevidencetothe  contrary.(Peoplev.Beach(1983)147_Cal.App_.3d612,625.) \ Also,thepresumptiondoesnotapplytoinstructionslimitingthe 2 useofcertainkindsofevidence,suchastheoutofcourt X statementofa_nontestifying_Ԁ_codefendant_Ԁthatinculpatesthe . _nondeclarant_Ԁdefendant(Peoplev.Fletcher(1996)13Cal.4th451,   461)orinadmissiblebutinflammatoryevidenceofuncharged   crimes.(Peoplev._Guerrero_(1976)16Cal.3d719,730.)(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularL".  G s2$  Ӏ  25    _ԀTworecentcasesonthescopeoftheduressdefensein  homicidecaseswhichcitedSonarepresentlypendinginthe  CaliforniaSupremeCourt:Peoplev.Anderson,S094710,arguedMay \ 7,2002(formerlyat85Cal.App.3d565)andPeoplev. 2 Chavez,S098775(formerlyat89Cal.App.4th806)Twoadditional X casesraisingduressdefenseissuesinhomicidecasesarealso . pending.(Peoplev._Mounsaveng_,S096988(formerlyat87    _Cal.App_.4th1253)andPeoplev._Reay_,S093980(unpublished).)  Andersonappearstobetheleadcase,although_Reay_,involving  duressintheBatteredWomanSyndromecontext,isalsofully \ briefed.C. MISCELLANEOUS BLACK-LETTER LAW ON JURY INSTRUCTIONS  s2$  Ӏ  15    _ ` Thecourt'sdiscussionofthisissuein_Raley_wasin  thecontextofthespecialcircumstanceoftorturemurder,but  thediscussionreferstothecasesdealingwithfirstdegree \ torturemurderandwouldseemtobeapplicabletothefirst 2 degreecontext.B. REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONSIII. RECENT AND LEADING CASE LAW ON HOMICIDE INSTRUCTIONSA. Elements of the Offenses5. Second Degree Felony-murder.B. Lesser Included OffensesC. Justification and ExcuseI. INTRODUCTION: SCOPE OF THESE MATERIALS(O$II. BLACK-LETTER LAW ON JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN GENERALA. SUA SPONTE INSTRUCTIONSC. MISCELLANEOUS BLACK-LETTER LAW ON JURY INSTRUCTIONSB. REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONSIII. RECENT AND LEADING CASE LAW ON HOMICIDE INSTRUCTIONSA. Elements of the OffensesB. Lesser Included OffensesC. Justification and Excuse %T!   _,XCXXX@l l FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @"JURYINSTRUCTIONS 6   @ RELATINGTOTHELAWOFHOMICIDE  2  @$January,1995 :  @ [MatZwerlingandSandra_Uribe_] 6   UpdatedFebruary2001 > [GeorgeL._Schraer_] :   UpdatedMay2002 l Z  Ӏ[_Rene_ԀE.Torres] h    -(1 Ї8  8`    "Butfromourappellateperspective,: ` x` x 8  8`   ofthemanyandvariedcontentionsoftrial {  courterrorweareaskedtoreview,nothing   resultsinmorecasesofreversibleerror M thanmistakesinjuryinstructions.">` x` x   (Peoplev._Thompkins_(1987)195_Cal.App_.3d244,252.)   8CXXdd8@" TABLEOFCONTENTS   I.4> ?O  5  INTRODUCTION:SCOPEOFTHESEMATERIALS6;?OO%  7 }................1 f   II.4@ ?O  5  BLACKLETTERLAWONJURYINSTRUCTIONSINGENERAL6D?OX%  7 x......3     4A ?O  5  A._Sua_Ԁ_Sponte_ԀInstructions6G?O[%  7 .............................4  j     ` 1.Thecourtmustinstruct_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁonthe      ` generalprinciplesoflawrelevanttothecase....4      ` 2.Some"generalprinciples"whichrequire_sua_ H     ` _sponte_Ԁinstructions..............................4 n     `  (a)Elementsoftheoffense...................5       `  (b)Burdenofproof...........................5 v    `  (c)Lesserincludedoffenses..................6 "r ̀(d)Defenses..................................8     `  (e)Credibilityofwitnesses..................9 z    `  (f)Technicaltermsandspecialmeanings......10 &v    `  (g)Unanimity.................................10 "    `   B.4D ?O  5  RequestedInstructions6?O%  7 8..............................12 T !    ` 1.Adefendantisentitledtorequested "P#    ` instructionswhichdirectthejury's "&$    ` attentiontoevidencewhichmayengender #%   0 ` areasonabledoubt,orrelatingfactsto$&` (#` (#    ` alegalissue.However,suchinstructions X% '     cannotbeargumentative,andmustmeetthe .&~!( Ѐrequirementsof"pinpoint"instructions........12 'T") I   ` 2.Thecourtmustgiveaproperrequested ($+    ` instructionwhenthereissubstantial )$,      ` evidencetosupporttheinstruction.............17 \*%-  ,X'/ Ї     ` 3.Acourthasnoobligationtoamplifyoralter     ` acceptedandcorrectinstructionsabsenta \    ` request.........................................18 2    ` 4.Acourtmustcorrectdefectsinproffered      ` instructionswhenthenatureofthe     defendant'stheoryoftheinstruction `     ` ismadeclear...................................19 6     C.4C ?O  5  MiscellaneousBlackLetterLaw6?O%  7 =......................20  2     ` 1.Thejuryispresumedtofollowinstructions.....20      ` 2.Juryinstructionsmustbereadasawhole.......20 :     ` 3.Doubtsaboutthesufficiencyofevidence 6    ` towarrantaninstructionshouldberesolved      ` indefendant'sfavor............................21     ` 4.Thecourthasadutynottoinstructon >    ` principlesoflawwhichareirrelevantto d    ` thecase........................................21 :    ` 5.Thecourtcannotdirectaverdictonany     ` element,regardlessofhowconclusivethe l    ` evidence........................................21 B    ` 6.Thecourtmust_reinstruct_Ԁthejuryifitis >    ` apparentthatthejuryisconfusedonapoint     ` oflaw..........................................23     ` 7.Thecourthasdiscretiontogiveinstructionsat F !    ` thebeginningofthetrial,orbeforeorafter !l"    ` closingargument................................23 !B#    ` 8.Thecourtmustsubmitwritteninstructionsto #%    ` thejuryuponrequestofthejury;otherwise t$&    ` thecourthasdiscretionwhethertosubmit J% '    ` writteninstructions............................24  &p!(    ` 9.Invitederror...................................25 '#*    ` 10.Bothdefendantanddefensecounselmustbe x)$,    ` presentduringjuryinstructionsandother N*%-    ` communicationsbetweenjudgeandjury..........27 $+t&.  +J'/ ЇIII.4E ?O  5  RECENTANDLEADINGCASESONHOMICIDEINSTRUCTIONS6v ?O %  7 h ....29 \   A.4F p?O  5  ElementsoftheOffense6z!?O!   7!(8!..............................30 X    ` 1.Homicide,MurderandManslaughterGenerally.....30      `  (a)KillingofFetus.........................32 `     `  (b)Causation.................................33  \     `  (c)AidingandAbetting......................39   #XCXX,XC7#,XCXXXC   `  (d)JuryUnanimity............................41 d     `  (e)InvitedError.............................44 `     ` 2.FirstDegreeMurder.............................45      `     h      `  (a)PremeditatedMurder......................46 h    `    `    (1)ExpressMalice.......................46 d    `    (2)ImpliedMalice.......................52     `    (3)PresumptionofMalice................52 l    `    (4)PremeditationandDeliberation.......55 h    `  (b)MurderbySpecifiedMeans.................59     `    (1)DestructiveDevice...................61 p     `    (2)LyinginWait........................62 !l"    `    `    (3)Torture..............................65 "$    ` 3.FirstDegreeFelonymurder......................68 t$&    ` 4.SecondDegreeMurder............................73  &p!(    `  (a)PresumptionofMalice.....................73 '#*    `  (b)ExpressMalice............................73 x)$,    `  (c)ImpliedMalice............................73 $+t&.  +J'/   5.SecondDegreeFelonymurder.....................80     ` 6.AttemptedHomicide..............................85 \    ` 7.VoluntaryManslaughter..........................90 X    `  (a)SuddenQuarrel/HeatofPassion............93      `  (b)UnreasonableSelfDefense.................98 `     ` 8.InvoluntaryManslaughter........................102  \     `  (a)MisdemeanorManslaughter..................103      `  (b)GrossNegligence..........................104 d     `  (c)CatchAllInvoluntaryManslaughter........110 `     `    `  (d)AttemptedInvoluntaryManslaughter........113     B.4G!(p?O  5  LesserIncludedOffenses6j0?O~0   7!(0.............................113 >    ` 1.LesserIncludedOffenses........................113 :    ` 2._Kurtzman_RequirementOrderofVerdictsand     ` Deliberations...................................116 l    ` 3.DewberryRequirementReasonableDoubtas h    ` toDegreeandastoGreater/Lesser..............119 >   C.4H!(p?O  5  JustificationandExcuse6w3?O3   7!(3............................121 p     `    `      `    `  '#* @# TABLEOFCASES     j @  %  I.INTRODUCTION:SCOPEOFTHESEMATERIALS%z5     Thesematerialswere_originaly_Ԁpreparedinconnectionwiththe f FirstDistrictAppellateProject'strainingseminaronthelawof   homicide,presentedJanuary28,1995.Theyhavesincebeenupdated n  twice:in2001bypanelattorneyGeorge_Schraer_,andin2002(in  j  connectionwiththeJune2002Homicide/SexOffenseSeminar)byFDAP   staffattorneyReneeTorres.   r    Thesematerialsprovideanoverviewofsomekeypointsoflaw n  concerninginstructionsinhomicidecases.    Thematerialsfirstpresentsomegeneralprinciplesofblack v letterlawconcerningjuryinstructionsinallcases.Thisisnot "r intendedtobeacomprehensivelisting,butratherageneral  frameworkwithinwhichthemorespecifichomicideinstruction z issuesfall.Wehavepresentedmuchofthisgeneralmaterialby &v wayofquotesfromthecases,inordertogiveasenseofthe " courts'rationaleandholdings. ~    Thematerialsthendiscussspecificissuesconcerning *!z" instructionsinhomicidecases.Itisnotpossibletopresenta "&$ comprehensivelistofinstructionalissuesinhomicidecases. $& However,thematerialsattempttosetoutanumberofimportant .&~!( areas,particularlyinvolvingrecentcaselaw. '*#*   Asnoted,thesematerialswere_oringinally_Ԁcompiledin )$, January,1995,andupdatedinFebruary2001andMay2002.Before 2+&. citinganyrecentCourtofAppealcasediscussedinthematerials,  thepractitionershouldchecktomakesurethecasehasnotbeen \ _depublished_Ԁorreviewgranted. X   Finally,pleasenotethatthematerialsarenotcomprehensive.   Anumberofareashavenotbeenincluded,orareonlyincludedin `  brief:  \    deathpenaltyandspecialcircumstanceissues;   1      ׀     theappellatestandardofrevieworstandardofprejudice d  forinstructionalerror; `    aiderandabettorliabilityorothertypesofvicarious   liability; h   conspiracylawasitrelatestohomicide(conspiracyto d commitmurder);    vehicularhomicide. l   Insum,thesematerialsareintendedtoprovideaframework h andstartingpointforthepractitionerdealingwithbasichomicide  instructionalissues. p    t$& @DD %  II.BLACKLETTERLAWONJURYINSTRUCTIONSINGENERAL%B      ` Thissectionisasummaryofsomeofthekeypointsof $t lawconcerningjuryinstructionsingeneral.Thelistingisnot   comprehensive,butispresentedheretogivethegeneralframework |  whichcoversthespecifichomicideinstructioncasesdiscussedin ( x  theremainingpartofthesematerials. $    Wehaveusedquotesfromthecaseshere,togiveasenseof   thescopeandrationaleofthecourts'broadholdingsonthe ,|  generallawofjuryinstructions. (   Pleaserememberthatthesematerialsdonotincludea  discussionoftheappellatestandardofrevieworthestandardof 0 prejudiceforinstructionalerror;thosequestionsarediscussedin , separatematerialspreparedforthistrainingseminar.    Therequirementthatthejudgeinstructthejuryissetoutin 4 PenalCode1093,subd.(f): 0 8  8`    "Thejudgemaythen[afterargumentof   counsel]chargethejury,andshalldosoon b ! anypointsoflawpertinenttotheissue,if 8!" requestedbyeitherparty;andthejudgemay "^# statethetestimony,andheorshemaymake "4$ suchcommentontheevidenceandthetestimony # % andcredibilityofanywitnessasinhisor $& heropinionisnecessaryfortheproper f% ' determinationofthecaseandheorshemay <&!( declarethelaw.Atthebeginningofthe 'b") trialorfromtimetotimeduringthetrial, '8#* andwithoutanyrequestfromeitherparty,the ($+ trialjudgemaygivethejurysuch )$, instructionsonthelawapplicabletothecase j*%- asthejudgemaydeemnecessaryfortheir @+&. guidanceonhearingthecase.Uponthejury ,f'/ retiringfordeliberation,thecourtshall  advisethejuryoftheavailabilityofa  writtencopyofthejuryinstructions.The \ courtmay,atitsdiscretion,providethejury 2 withacopyofthewritteninstructionsgiven. X However,ifthejuryrequeststhecourtto . supplyacopyofthewritteninstructions,the   courtshallsupplythejurywithacopy." ` x` x   Thelawconcerningjuryinstructionsisgenerallydividedinto 6   twomajorareas:(1)instructionswhichmustbegiven_sua__sponte_by  2  thecourt;and(2)instructionswhichshouldbegivenuponrequest   ofaparty.Caselawinvolvingthesetwoareasispresented :  below.Inaddition,certaingeneralblackletterprinciplesoflaw 6 concerninginstructionsarealsosummarized.    %  A._SUA_Ԁ_SPONTE_ԀINSTRUCTIONS%"P  :    ` 1.Thecourtmustinstruct_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁonthegeneral     `  principlesoflawrelevanttothecase . l 8  8`      "Itissettledthatincriminal 4 cases,evenintheabsenceofarequest,the  Z trialcourtmustinstructonthegeneral 0 principlesoflawrelevanttotheissues   raisedbytheevidence.[Citations.]The  ! generalprinciplesoflawgoverningthecase b!" arethoseprinciplescloselyandopenly 8"# connectedwiththefactsbeforethecourt,and #^$ whicharenecessaryforthejury's #4% understandingofthecase.[Citation.]"$ &` x` x    ` (Peoplev.St.Martin(1970)1Cal.3d524,531.) % '    ` 2.Some"generalprinciples"whichrequire_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁ (b#*    `  instructions . (F$+    `  Alargenumberofinstructionsarerequired_sua_ +&. _sponte,andacompletelistingisbeyondthescopeofthese  materials.Thefollowingaremajorareasinwhichithasbeenheld \ thatinstructionsmustbegivensuasponte.     x   X    `    `  (a)Elementsoftheoffense. `  8  8`      "ThetrialcourtmustӀinstructeven  \  withoutrequestonthegeneralprinciplesof  2  lawrelevanttoandgoverningthecase.   [Citation.]Thatobligationincludes   instructionsonalloftheelementsofa d  chargedoffense.[Citation.]" p : ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Cummings(1993)4Cal.4th1233,1311.) `     ` Theelementsoftheoffenseincludethenecessaryintent   forthecrime: h 8  8`      "Asoneoftheessentialelementsof d robberyisaspecificintenttosteal : [citations],itfollowsthatitwasthetrial  court'sdutyinthecaseatbenchtoso  instructthejuryevenwithoutarequest l thereforbydefendant.[Citation.]"B` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Ford(1964)60Cal.2d772,793, h 0  0` (#(#disapprovedonothergroundsinPeoplev.>` (#` (#    ` Satchell(1971)6Cal.3d28.)     `  (b)Burdenofproof. F ! 8  8`      "Apparentlythroughinadvertencethe !B# trialcourtfailedtoincludeinitschargeto "$ thejuryanyspecificinstructionthatthe #% defendantswerepresumedtobeinnocentand t$& thattheprosecutionhadtheburdenofproving J% ' theirguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt....  &p!( Eventhoughnosuchinstructionisrequested, &F") thecourtmustneverthelessinstructsua '#* sponteonthosegeneralprinciplesoflaw (#+ whicharecloselyandopenlyconnectedwith x)$, thefactsandarenecessaryforthejury's N*%- understandingofthecase."$+t&.` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Vann(1974)12Cal.3d220,225226.) +J'/ Ї   ` Therequirementforinstructionsonburdenofproof  includesinstructingthejuryastoanyburdensplacedonthe \ defendanttoprovedefenses: X 8  8`      "Thecourtisrequiredtoinstruct   thejuryonboththeassignmentandthe   magnitudeofburdensofproof.[Citation.]"` ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Figueroa(1986)41Cal.3d714,721. 6      ` Originalemphasis.)  \     `  (c)Lesserincludedoffenses.   8  8`      "Thatobligation[toinstructon :  generalprinciplesoflawgoverningthecase] `  hasbeenheldtoincludegivinginstructions 6 onlesserincludedoffenseswhentheevidence   raisesaquestionastowhetherallofthe  elementsofthechargedoffensewerepresent h [citation],butnotwhenthereisnoevidence > thattheoffensewaslessthanthatcharged. d [Citation.]Theobligationtoinstructon : lesserincludedoffensesexistsevenwhenasa  matteroftrialtacticsadefendantnotonly  failstorequesttheinstructionbutexpressly l objectstoitsbeinggiven.Justasthe B Peoplehavenolegitimateinterestin h obtainingaconvictionofagreateroffense > thanthatestablishedbytheevidence,a  defendanthasnorighttoanacquittalwhen  thatevidenceissufficienttoestablisha p  lesserincludedoffense.[Citation.](People F ! v.Breverman(1998)19Cal.4th142,154155, !l" quotingPeoplev.Sedeno(1974)10Cal.3d703, !B# 715716.)"$` x` x 8  8`      "InPeoplev.Flannel(1979)25 J% ' Cal.3d668,684685fn.12,theleadopinion  &p!( disapprovedthesuggestionthat`jury &F") instructionsmustbegivenwheneverany '#* evidenceispresented,nomatterhowweak'... (#+ Theleadopinionstatedthatthecourtneed x)$, onlygivetheinstructioniftheaccused N*%- proffersevidencesufficientto`deserve $+t&. considerationbythejury,i.e.,_"evidence +J'/ fromwhichajurycomposedofreasonablemen  couldhaveconcluded"'thattheparticular  factsunderlyingtheinstructiondidexist. \ [Citation.]2` x` x 8  8`      Thisdoesnotrequireorpermit X thetrialcourttodeterminethecredibility . ofwitnesses.Itsimplyfreesthecourtfrom   anyobligationtopresenttheoriestothejury   whichthejurycouldnotreasonablyfindto `  exist....6  ` x` x 8  8`      Flanneldidnotdirectlydiscussthe  \  standardtobeutilizedindeterminingwhen  2  thecourthasadutytoinstruct_sua__sponte_on   necessarilyincludedoffenses.However,logic   wouldseemtorequirethatthesamestandard d  shouldgenerallyapply.Thetrialcourtis :  notobligatedtoinstruct_sua__sponte_on `  necessarilyincludedoffensesunlessthe 6 evidencewouldjustifyaconvictionofsuch   offenses.[Citation.]"` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Wickersham_(1982)32Cal.3d307, h    ` 324325.) > 8  8`      "Forpurposesofdeterminingwhether  aninstructiononalesserincludedoffense  mayormustbegivenanoffenseisnecessarily l includedinthechargedoffenseifunderthe B statutorydefinitionofthechargedoffenseit h cannotbecommittedwithoutcommittingthe > lesseroffense,orifthechargingallegations  oftheaccusatorypleadingincludelanguage  describingtheoffenseinsuchawaythatif p  committedasspecifiedthelesseroffenseis F ! necessarilycommitted.[Citation.]"!l"` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Geiger(1984)35Cal.3d510,517 !B#    ` fn.4,overruledonothergroundsinPeople "$    ` v._Birks_(1998)19Cal.4th108.) #% 8  8`      "Ithasbeenconsistentlyheldin  &p!( thisstatesince1880thatwhentheevidence &F") issufficienttosupportafindingofguiltof '#* boththeoffensechargedandalesserincluded (#+ offense,thejurymustbeinstructedthatif x)$, theyentertainareasonabledoubtastowhich N*%- offensehasbeencommitted,theymustfindthe $+t&. defendantguiltyonlyofthelesseroffense. +J'/ [Citation.]"` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Dewberry(1959)51Cal.2d548,555.)  8  8`      "[A]juryshouldberestrictedonly X fromreturningaverdicton,notfrom . consideringordeliberatingon,alesser   includedoffensebeforeacquittingofthe   greateroffense.Itshouldotherwisebefree `  toconsiderchargesinanyorderitfeels 6   conducivetofruitfuldeliberations.  \  [Citation.]" 2 ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Hernandez(1988)47Cal.3d315,352.)      `  (d)Defenses. :  8  8`      "Thedutytoinstruct,_sua__sponte_, 6 ongeneralprinciplescloselyandopenly   connectedwiththefactsbeforethecourtalso  encompassesanobligationtoinstructon h defenses,includingselfdefenseand > unconsciousness,andontherelationshipof d thesedefensestotheelementsofthecharged : offense.[Par.]...[_T]he_Ԁdutytogive  instructions,_sua__sponte_,onparticular  defensesandtheirrelevancetothecharged l offensearisesonlyifitappearsthatthe B defendantisrelyingonsuchadefense,orif h thereissubstantialevidencesupportiveof > suchadefenseandthedefenseisnot  inconsistentwiththedefendant'stheoryof  thecase."p ` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Sedeno_(1974)10Cal.3d703,716, F !    ` overruledonothergroundsinPeoplev._Breverman_ !l"    ` (1998)19Cal.4th142.) !B# 8  8`      "Ifdefendantproffersevidence t$& enoughtodeserveconsiderationbythejury, J% ' i.e.,`evidencefromwhichajurycomposedof  &p!( reasonablemencouldhaveconcluded[thatthe &F") defenseexisted]'[citation],thecourtmust '#* soinstruct.Atrialcourtshouldnot, (#+ however,measurethesubstantialityofthe x)$, evidencebyundertakingtoweighthe N*%- credibilityofthewitnesses,atask $+t&. exclusivelyrelegatedtothejury.Ifthe +J'/ evidenceshouldproveminimaland  insubstantial,however,thecourtneednot  instructonitseffect.[Citations.]Inother \ words,`[_t]he_Ԁcourtshouldinstructthejury 2 oneverytheoryofthecase,butonlytothe X extenteachissupportedbysubstantial . evidence.'[Citation.]Welikewisenotethat   `Doubtsastothesufficiencyoftheevidence   towarrantinstructionsshouldberesolvedin `  favoroftheaccused.'[Citations.]"6  ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Flannel(1979)25Cal.3d668,684685.)  \     `  (e)Credibilityofwitnesses.   8  8`      "Wedeemitappropriate...to :  reaffirmandreinforcetheexisting `  instructionsastothecredibilityof 6 witnesseswhichmustpresentlybegivenat   leastinpart(seePen.Code1127)_sua_  _sponte_bythetrialcourtineverycriminal h case.Thusthesubstanceoftheinstruction > setforthasCALJICNo.2.20shouldhenceforth d alwaysbegiven,andwhilethoseparagraphs : thereofinapplicableundertheevidencemaybe  omitted,theparagraphsalertingthejuryto  thebearingonthecredibilityofawitnessof l the`existenceornonexistenceofabias, B interest,orothermotive'andtheattitudeof h thewitness`towardtheactioninwhichhe > testifiesortowardthegivingoftestimony,'  shouldbegiveninanycaseinwhichthe  victimoftheallegedoffensehastestified p  fortheprosecution,regardlessofwhether F ! specificevidenceofanymotiveordisposition !l" tomisstatefactsonthepartofthe !B# complainingwitnesshasbeenadducedbythe "$ defendant.#%` x` x 8  8`      h Wearealsooftheopinionthat t$& aninstructionderivedfromCALJICNo.2.22 J% ' ["WeighingConflictingTestimony"]...should  &p!( begivenhenceforthineverycriminalcasein &F") whichnocorroboratingevidenceisrequired. '#* ...Anewinstruction...shouldbegivenin (#+ everycriminalcaseinwhichnocorroborating x)$, evidenceisrequiredandshouldread N*%- substantiallyasfollows:`Testimonywhich $+t&. youbelievegivenbyonewitnessissufficient +J'/ fortheproofofanyfact.However,before  findinganyfacttobeprovedsolelybythe  testimonyofsuchasinglewitness,youshould \ carefullyreviewallofthetestimonyupon 2 whichproofofsuchfactdepends.'"X` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Rincon_Ԅ_Pineda_(1975)14Cal.3d864,883885.) . 8  8`      "[_I]t_Ԁisthedutyofthetrialcourt `  inacriminalcasetogive,onitsownmotion, 6   instructionsonthepertinentprinciplesof  \  lawregardingaccomplicetestimony`...  2  wheneverthetestimonygivenuponthetrialis   sufficienttowarranttheconclusionuponthe   partofthejurythatawitnessimplicatinga d  defendantwasanaccomplice...'[Citation] :  [Fn.3:Theappropriateinstructions...are `  (1)thatthetestimonyoftheaccomplice 6 witnessistobeviewedwithdistrust   [citation],and(2)thatthedefendantcannot  beconvictedonthebasisoftheaccomplice's h testimonyunlessitiscorroborated....]">` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Gordon(1973)10Cal.3d460,466.)  d    `    `    `  (f)Technicaltermsandspecialmeanings.  8  8`      "Sucha[_sua__sponte_]duty[togive B clarifyingoramplifyinginstructions]arises h wherethetermshaveatechnicalmeaningthat > ispeculiartothelaw.AsJustice_Mosk_  observedinPeoplev._Failla_(1966)64Cal.2d  560,565,`Thegeneralruleprovidesthatin p  definingtheelementsofacrimeitisenough F ! forthecourttoinstructinthelanguageof !l" thestatutewhenthedefendantfailsto !B# requestamplificationthereof.[Citations.] "$ Butthatruleisalwayssubjecttothe #% qualificationthat"Aninstructioninthe t$& languageofastatuteisproperonlyifthe J% ' jurywouldhavenodifficultyinunderstanding  &p!( thestatutewithoutguidancefromthecourt."' &F") [Citation.]However,itiswellsettledthat '#* wheretheterms`havenotechnicalmeaning (#+ peculiartothelaw,butarecommonly x)$, understoodbythosefamiliarwiththeEnglish N*%- language,instructionsastotheirmeaningare $+t&. notrequired.'[Citation.]"+J'/` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Howard(1988)44Cal.3d375,408.)       `  (g)Unanimity. 2 8  8`      "[_W]hen_Ԁtheaccusatorypleading . chargesasinglecriminalactandtheevidence   showsmorethanonesuchunlawfulact,either   theprosecutionmustselectthespecificact `  reliedontoprovethechargeorthejurymust 6   beinstructed...thatitmustunanimously  \  agreebeyondareasonabledoubtthatdefendant  2  committedthesamespecificcriminalact." ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Gordon(1985)165_Cal.App_.3d839,      ` 853.Originalemphasis.) d     ` 8  8`      "Thesecondestablishedprincipleis 6 thataunanimityinstructionisnotrequired   whenthecasefallswithinthecontinuous  courseofconductexception....Analogousto h thesinglecourseofconductexceptionisthe > thirdestablishedprinciple,thatthefailure d togive[aunanimityinstruction]isharmless : whendisagreementbythejuryisnot  reasonablyprobable....Thefourthprinciple  applicabletothequestionwhetherunanimity l instructionsarerequiredisthatthejuryis B notrequiredtoagreeonthespecific`theory' h ofguilt.[Citation.]">` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Melendez_(1990)224_Cal.App_.3d1420,     ` 14281432.Criticizedonitsholding,butnot     ` theabovegeneralprinciples,inPeoplev. p     ` Davis(1992)8_Cal.App_.4th28andPeoplev. F !    ` Perez(1993)21_Cal.App_.4th214.) !l" 8  8`      "Asforthenecessityofaunanimous #% juryonspecificcharges,weacknowledgethat t$& therequirementofunanimityincriminalcases J% ' isofconstitutionalorigin.(SeeCal.  &p!( Const.,art.I,16.)Thestandardunanimity &F") instructioncodifiesthatprinciple.... '#* [Par.]Inacaseinwhichtheevidence (#+ indicatesthejurorsmightdisagreeastothe x)$, particularactdefendantcommitted,the N*%- standardunanimityinstructionshouldbe $+t&. given.[Citation.]Butwhenthereisno +J'/ reasonablelikelihoodofjurordisagreementas  toparticularacts,andtheonlyquestionis  whetherornotthedefendantinfactcommitted \ allofthem,thejuryshouldbegivena 2 modifiedunanimityinstructionwhich,in X additiontoallowingaconvictionifthe . jurorsunanimouslyagreeonspecificacts,   alsoallowsaconvictionifthejury   unanimouslyagreesthedefendantcommittedall `  theactsdescribedbythevictim."6  ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Jones(1990)51Cal.3d294,321322.)  \    % 7 B.REQUESTEDINSTRUCTIONS%70  d  .3&      ` .3&-1  .0   Adefendantisentitledtorequestedinstructions.3&-یn  (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(# whichdirectthejury'sattentiontoprinciplesof R  lawwhichmayengenderareasonabledoubt.  @  @ 󀀀 @8"  @8"  @8"  @8"  6 However,suchinstructionscannotbeargumentative,󀀀   andmustmeettherequirementsof"pinpoint" @  @  @  @  @  @   instructions .` (#` (#   Theconceptofrequested"pinpoint"instructionsissomewhat L elusiveanddifficulttoapplyinactualspecifics.TheCalifornia H SupremeCourtoriginallystatedthebasicprincipleclearlyin  Peoplev.Sears: P 8  8`      "Section1096aofthePenalCode L declaresthatwhenthestatutorydefinitionof "  reasonabledoubtisgiven(seePenalCode  ! 1096),nootherinstructionneedbegiven ~!" definingreasonabledoubt.Despitethis T"# section,adefendant,uponproperrequest *#z$ therefor,hasarighttoaninstructionthat $P% directsattentiontoevidencefroma $& & considerationofwhichareasonabledoubtof % ' hisguiltcouldbeengendered.(Peoplev. &!( _Granados_,49Cal.2d490,496.)Thisrightis X'") notlimitedtofelonymurdercases,suchas .(~#* _Granados_...,wherethedefendantisdemanding )T$+ aninstructionthattheunderlyingfelonymust )*%, beprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.A *&- defendantisentitledtoaninstruction +&. relatingparticularfactstoanylegalissue. \,'/ [Citations.]"` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Sears(1970)2Cal.3d180,190.    Subsequently,theCourtusedtheterm"pinpoint"todescribe X thisprinciple:   8  8`      "Forhispart,thedefendantis `  entitleduponrequesttoaninstruction 6   `relatingparticularfactstoanylegal  \  issue.'[Citation.]Sucharequested  2  instructionmay,inappropriatecircumstances,   relatethereasonabledoubtstandardforproof   ofguilttoparticularelementsofthecrime d  chargedormay`pinpoint'thecruxofa :  defendant'scase,suchasmistaken `  identificationoralibi.[Citations.]"6` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Rincon_Ԅ_Pineda_(1975)14Cal.3d864,885.)     However,inactualapplicationthecourthasbeenrestrictive > inpermittingsuchpinpointinstructions.Thecourthassetforth : anumberofqualificationsconcerningpinpointinstructions.  First,theinstructioncannotbesimply_duplicative_Ԁofother B instructionsalreadygiven: > 8  8`    "Defendantalsonotesthatinstruction p  No.4wouldtellthejuryheneednotprove F ! hisinnocenceoranother'sguilt;butthe !l" courtstatedthisruleinCALJICNo.2.90, !B# whichdefinesthepresumptionofinnocenceand "$ theprosecutor'sgeneralburdenofproof #% beyondareasonabledoubt.Defendant's t$& specialinstructionsNos.1and4arethus J% ' repetitiousofinstructionsalreadygiven,the  &p!( trialcourtcorrectlyrefusedthemonthis &F") ground.[Citation.]"'#*` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Wright(1988)45Cal.3d1126,1134.) (#+   Second,theinstructioncannotbeargumentative.By $+t&. "argumentative,"thecourthasretreatedfromtheoriginalexplicit  Searsstatementthattheinstructioncanreferto"evidence,"and \ hasstatedthatSearsactuallymeantthattheinstructioncannot X refertoevidence:   8  8`      "Defendant'ssecondproposed `  instructionlistscertainspecificitemsof 6   evidenceintroducedattrial,andwouldadvise  \  thejurythatitmay`consider'suchevidence  2  indeterminingwhetherdefendantisguilty   beyondareasonabledoubt.Thecourtrefused   togivethisinstructionbecauseitis d  argumentative,i.e.,itwouldinvitethejury :  todrawinferencesfavorabletothedefendant `  fromspecifieditemsofevidenceonadisputed 6 questionoffact,andthereforeproperly   belongsnotininstructions,butinthe  argumentsofcounseltothejury.[Par.]The h courtruledcorrectly....`Aninstruction > shouldcontainaprincipleoflawapplicable d tothecase,expressedinplainlanguage, : indicatingnoopinionofthecourtastoany  factinissue.'[Citation.]"` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Wright(1988)45Cal.3d1126,1135.) l    `   Thecourtexplainedthatthekeydifferenceisbetween > instructionswhichrelateprinciplesoflaw,asopposedto  instructionswhicharguedspecificfacts: F ! 8  8`      "Thedifferencebetweenan !B# instructionthatpinpointsthecruxofthe "$ defenseandonethatimproperlyimplies #% certainconclusionsfromspecifiedevidenceis t$& illustratedbyPeoplev.Wilson[citation],a J% ' casereliedoninSears.Thedefendantin  &p!( Wilson,chargedwithrobbery,putonanalibi &F") defense.Thecourtinstructedgenerallythat '#* theprosecutionmustproveeverymaterialfact (#+ beyondareasonabledoubt,anddefined x)$, reasonabledoubt....Thedefendantspecially N*%- requestedadditionalinstructionsthat $+t&. explainedthealibidefense,relatingitto +J'/ theprosecution'sburdenofproof,and  advisingthejurythatifitbelievedthe  defendantwasnotpresentwhenthecrimewas \ committed,heshouldbeacquitted.Thecourt 2 refusedtheseinstructions.[Par.]...The X CourtofAppealreversedtheconviction, . distinguishingbetweeninstructionsmerely   `defining'reasonabledoubtandthose   `coveringadefenseasshownbytheevidence `  inthecasefromwhichreasonabledoubtofthe 6   guiltofthedefendantmaybeinferred.'  \  [Citation.]Thedefendant'srequested  2  instructionwasinthelattercategory,forit   pinpointedthetheoryofthedefense,namely   alibi,andchargedthejuryonhowtorelate d  theevidenceofthatdefensetothe :  prosecution'sgeneralburdenofprovingguilt `  beyondareasonabledoubt.[Thisinstruction 6 wasavalidone.]" ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Wright(1988)45Cal.3d1126,11371138.)    Numerouscaseshaveruledonparticularpinpointinstructions, d anditisbeyondthescopeofthesematerialstoenumeratethe  casesandholdings.However,somebriefexamplescanillustrate l thedifficultyinapplyingthelawofpinpointinstructions.In h Peoplev.Roberts(1992)2Cal.4th271,thetrialcourtrejecteda  defensepinpointinstruction,concerningthecredibilityof p  witnesses,asargumentative.Theevidenceinthecaseshowedthat !l" certainwitnessesfortheprosecutionhadreceivedpaymentsand "$ promises.TheSupremeCourtheld: t$& 8  8`      "Defendantcontendsthecourterred  &p!( bynotmodifyingCALJICNo.2.20(4thed., &F") 1980rev.)asherequested.Thatinstruction '#* remindsjurorstoconsiderwitnesses'possible (#+ bias,interest,orothermotiveforgiving x)$, testimony.Defendantwouldhavehadthecourt N*%- specifythatthejurymustalsoconsiderthe $+t&. state'sspecificpromisesandpaymentsto +J'/ certainprosecutionwitnessesinevaluating  credibility.` x` x 8  8`    Defendant'srequestedinstructionwould \ havebeentooargumentative.`Acriminal 2 defendantisentitled,onrequest,toan X instruction"pinpointing"thetheoryofhis . defense.[Citations.]Aswerecently   explained,however,instructionsthatattempt   torelateparticularfactstoalegalissue `  aregenerallyobjectionableasargumentative 6   [citation],andtheeffectofcertainfactson  \  identifiedtheories`isbestlefttoargument  2  bycounsel,crossexaminationofthe   witnesses,andexperttestimonywhere   appropriate.'[Citation.]"d ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Roberts(1992)2Cal.4th271,313314.) :    Thus,wherethereisevidencethatawitnesshasreceived   paymentsorpromises,adefensepinpointinstructiononcredibility h isapparentlyvulnerablewhereitaddsatermsuchas"paymentsto d awitness"tothegeneralinstructiononcredibilityofwitnesses.  However,inPeoplev._Randle_(1992)8_Cal.App_.4th1023,therewas l evidencethatthedefendantchangedhisappearanceafterarrestto h avoididentification.Theprosecutionrequestedapinpoint  instructiononconsciousnessofguilt,whichthetrialcourtgave: p  "Ifyoufindthatadefendantattemptedtosuppressevidence !l" againsthimselfinanymanner,suchasbychangeofappearance, "$ suchattemptmaybeconsideredbyyouasacircumstancetendingto t$& showconsciousnessofguilt."(8_Cal.App_.4that1036fn.3.)The  &p!( courtofappealhadnotroubleupholdingthisinstructionagainst '#* thechargethatitviolatedtherulesofpinpointinstructions: x)$, 8  8`      "Theinstructionatissueheredoes $+t&. notfocusonspecificevidence.Acontrary +J'/ conclusionmighthavebeenreachedifthe  trialcourthadspecificallydirectedthe  jury'sattentiontothechangeofhairstyleor \ themissingshirt.Nosuchpinpointingwas 2 presenthere.Instead,thetrialcourtonly X tailoredtheinstructiontothegenerictype . ofconsciousnessofguiltdisclosedbythe   evidence....[Par.]Here,thetrialcourt   properlydrewtothejury'sattentionthatit `  wasappellant'sefforttodisguisehimself 6   thatwastheapplicableformofsuppressionof  \  evidence.Suchguidanceisproper." 2 ` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Randle_(1992)8_Cal.App_.4th1023,1036      ` 1037.)      `    Thedistinctionbetween"paymentstowitnesses"and"changeof `  appearance"isnotreadilyapparent.Ingeneral,themore   specificallytheinstructionfocusesonparticularevidence,the h morevulnerableitwouldseemtobe.However,fromtheabove d examplesitappearsthelinebetween"specific"evidenceand  "generaltheory"isablurredone. l   NotethatthecourtinPeoplev._Saille_(1991)54Cal.3dӀ1103 h reviewedthelawconcerningpinpointinstructions,andheldthatan  instructionwhichrelatesnottoadefensetoacrimebutrather p  justtonegatinganelementofthecrime,mustberequestedasa !l" pinpointinstruction._   2      _ "$    ` 2.ThecourtmustgiveaproperrequestedinstructionӀ  &p!(    `  whenthereissubstantialevidencetosupportthe 'T")    `  instruction.  '8#*  ($+ 8  8`      "Wehavepreviouslyenunciatedthe  principlesgoverningthedutyofatrialcourt  togiverequestedinstructions.InPeoplev. \ Carmen,supra,36Cal.2d768,773774,we 2 notedthat`itisreversibleerrortorefusea X manslaughterinstructioninacasewhere . murderischarged,andtheevidencewould   warrantaconvictionofmanslaughter.'   (Italicsadded.)Wefoundit`elementarythat `  thecourtshouldinstructthejuryuponevery 6   materialquestionuponwhichthereisany  \  evidencedeservingofanyconsideration  2  whatever.'"(Originalitalics.)Wewenton   towarnthat`[_t]he_Ԁfactthattheevidencemay   notbeofacharactertoinspirebeliefdoes d  notauthorizetherefusalofaninstruction :  basedthereon.[Citations.]Thatisa `  questionwithintheexclusiveprovinceofthe 6 jury.'(Id.)`Asanobviouscorollary,where   thereis"nosubstantialevidence...'the  courtdoesnoterrinrefusingtogive h instructions..."[Citation.]>` x` x 8  8`      "....Ifdefendantproffersevidence d enoughtodeserveconsiderationbythejury, : i.e.,`evidencefromwhichajurycomposedof  reasonablemencouldhaveconcludedthat[the  substanceoftheinstructionistrue]' l [citation],thecourtmustsoinstruct.A B trialcourtshouldnot,however,measurethe h substantialityoftheevidencebyundertaking > toweighthecredibilityofthewitnesses,a  taskexclusivelyrelegatedtothejury.If  theevidenceshouldproveminimaland p  insubstantial,however,thecourtneednot F ! instructonitseffect.[Fn.12:Manycases !l" cite,oftenwithoutelaboration,languagein !B# Carmen,supra,36Cal.2d768,orinPeoplev. "$ Modesto(1963)59Cal.3d722,729,tothe #% effectthatjuryinstructionmustbegiven t$& wheneveranyevidenceispresented,nomatter J% ' howweak.Totheextentthatadecisionof  &p!( anycourtinterpretsthesecasestorequire &F") instructionswithoutevidencesubstantial '#* enoughtomeritconsideration,itis (#+ disapproved.]Inotherwords,`[_t]he_Ԁcourt x)$, shouldinstructthejuryoneverytheoryof N*%- thecase,butonlytotheextenteachis $+t&. supportedbysubstantialevidence.' +J'/ [Citation.]Welikewisenotethat`Doubtsas  tothesufficiencyoftheevidencetowarrant  instructionsshouldberesolvedinfavorof \ theaccused.'[Citation.]"2` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Flannel(1979)25Cal.3d668,684685.) X      ` 3.Acourthasnoobligationtoamplifyortoalter      ` 󀀀acceptedandcorrectinstructionsabsentarequest.  n  8  8`      "Thetrialcourtcannotreasonably ( x  beexpectedtoattempttoreviseorimprove  N  acceptedandcorrectjuryinstructionsabsent $  somerequestfromcounsel." ` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Wolcott_(1983)34Cal.3d92,108109.)   8  8`      "Generally,apartymaynotcomplain R onappealthataninstructioncorrectinlaw ( andresponsivetotheevidencewastoogeneral  orincompleteunlessthepartyhasrequested  appropriateclarifyingoramplifyinglanguage. Z [Citation.]"0` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Andrews(1989)49Cal.3d200,218.) V    ` 4.Acourtmustcorrectdefectsinproffered  ^    ` instructionswhenthenatureofthedefendant's  B    ` theoryoftheinstructionismadeclear.  &v 8  8`      "_Nichols_'proposedinstructionNo.5   wasidenticaltooneoftheinstructionswhich  ! wasfoundtobetoolongandargumentativein b!" Guzman.[Citation]Further,someofthe 8"# factorshighlightedbytheinstructionhaveno #^$ applicationtothepresentcase.Althoughthe #4% trialcourtdidnoterrinrefusingtogive $ & theinstructionaswritten,itshouldnothave % ' refusedtotailortheinstructiontothefacts f&!( ofthecase."<'")` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Hall(1980)28Cal.3d143,159, (b#*    ` disapprovedonothergrounds,Peoplev. (8$+    ` Valentine(1986)42Cal.3d170.) )%, 8  8`   @,'/` x` x 8  8`      "Thetrialcourtmustcorrect  defectsinprofferedinstructionswherethe  natureofthedefendant'stheoryismadeclear \ toit."2` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Brady(1987)190_Cal.App_.3d124,136;  X    ` disapprovedonothergroundsinPeoplev. .    ` _Montoya_(1994)7Cal.4th1033,1040.)   8  8`      "Werejectatthethresholdthe 6   People'sargumentthatdefendant'sproposed  \  instructionimproperlyincorporatedDr.  2  _Pezdek_'sopinionsandrestatedthemasfacts.   Totheextentthattheproposedinstruction   wasargumentative,thetrialcourtshouldhave d  tailoredtheinstructiontoconformtothe :  requirementsofWright,supra,45Cal.3d1126, `  ratherthandenytheinstructionoutright."6` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Fudge(1994)7Cal.4th1075,1110.)     % 5 C.MISCELLANEOUSBLACKLETTERLAWONJURYINSTRUCTIONS%5   d    ` 1.Thejuryispresumedtofollowinstructions.  z 8  8`      "Thecrucialassumptionunderlying 4 ourconstitutionalsystemoftrialbyjuryis  Z thatjurorsgenerallyunderstandand 0 faithfullyfollowinstructions.[Citation.]"` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Mickey(1991)54Cal.3d612,689,fn.17.)_0   3      _      ` 2.Juryinstructionsmustbeviewedasawhole . "^#  "B$ 8  8`      "Itiswellestablishedin  Californiathatthecorrectnessofjury  instructionsistobedeterminedfromthe \ entirechargeofthecourt,notfroma 2 considerationofpartsofaninstructionor X fromaparticularinstruction.[Citation.] . `[_T]he_Ԁfactthatthenecessaryelementsofa   jurychargearetobefoundintwo   instructionsratherthaninoneinstruction `  doesnot,initself,makethecharge 6   prejudicial.'[Citation.]`Theabsenceofan  \  essentialelementinoneinstructionmaybe  2  suppliedbyanotherorcuredinlightofthe   instructionsasawhole.'[Citation.]" ` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Burgener_(1986)41Cal.3d505,538539.) d     ` 3. Doubtsaboutthesufficiencyofevidenceto 6    `  warrantaninstructionshouldberesolvedin     `  defendant'sfavor .  8  8`      "Doubtsastothesufficiencyofthe h evidencetowarrantinstructionsshouldbe > resolvedinfavoroftheaccused.Sucharule d assurescompliancewiththeruleslaiddownin : section1093ofthePenalCode."` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Wilson(1967)66Cal.2d749,763.)     ` 4.Thecourthasadutynottoinstructonprinciples h    `  oflawwhichareirrelevanttothecase.  L 8  8`      "Thetrialcourt'sdutyina   criminalcasetoinstructonthegeneral  ! principlesoflawrelevanttotheissues b!" raisedbytheevidence[citations]includesa 8"# correlativedutytorefrainfrominstructing #^$ onprinciplesoflawwhichnotonlyare #4% irrelevanttotheissuesraisedbythe $ & evidencebutalsohavetheeffectofconfusing % ' thejuryorrelievingitfrommakingfindings f&!( onrelevantissues."<'")` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Satchell_(1971)6Cal.3d28,33fn.10.) (b#*    ` 5.Thecourtcannotdirectaverdictonanyelement, *%-    `  regardlessofhowconclusivetheevidence.  x+&.  \,'/ 8  8`      "Ithaslongbeenrecognizedthata  trialjudge`maynotdirectaverdictof  guiltynomatterhowconclusivetheevidence.' \ [Citations.][Par]Theprohibitionagainst 2 directedverdicts`includesperforce X situationsinwhichthejudge'sinstructions . fallshortofdirectingaguiltyverdictbut   whichneverthelesshavetheeffectofsodoing   byeliminatingotherrelevantconsiderations `  ifthejuryfindsonefacttobetrue.' 6   [Citation.]...`[_N]o_Ԁfact,notevenan  \  undisputedfact,maybedeterminedbythe  2  judge.'[Citation.]" ` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Figueroa_(1986)41Cal.3d714,724.)     In_Figueroa_thecourtheldthatitwasthereforeerrorforthe :  courttoinstructthejury,inasecuritiesfraudcase,thatthe 6 notesinquestionwere"securities"underthelaw.However,ina  subsequentcase,withoutanydiscussionof_Figueroa_orother > authority,thecourtseemedtoretreatfromthisposition: : 8  8`      "Defendantcontendsthecourt  directedaverdictonanelementofthe l burglarywithwhichhewascharged....[Par.] B Thecourtinstructedthejury...`Every h personwhoentersanystructureofatype > shownbytheevidenceinthiscasewiththe  specificintenttosteal...[isguiltyof  burglary].Inordertoprove...burglary, p  eachofthefollowingelementsmustbeproved: F ! One,thatapersonenteredastructureofthe !l" typeshownbytheevidence,....'[Par.] !B# Section459providedinpertinentpartatthe "$ timeofthecrimeschargedthatanyonewho #% enters`anyhouse...orotherbuilding... t$& withintenttocommitgrandorpetitlarceny J% ' oranyfelonyisguiltyofburglary. &p!(` x` x 8  8`      Theinstructionrequiredthejuryto &F") findthatdefendantenteredastructure.It '#* alsorequiredthejurytofindthatdefendant (#+ enteredastructureofthetypeshownbythe x)$, evidence.Theonlythingthattheinstruction N*%- didnotrequireofthejurywasafindingthat $+t&. the`structureofthetypeshownbythe +J'/ evidence'wasabuilding.Butonlyonetype  ofstructurewasshownbytheevidence:the  _Davieses_'house.Bydefinitionthehousewas \ abuilding.Norationaltrieroffactcould 2 havefoundthatthestructureshownbythe X evidence...wasnotabuilding.Thelawdoes . notrequirethejurytodecidetheimpossible.   Therewasnoerror." ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.DeSantis(1992)2Cal.4th1198,12241225.) `     `       ` 6.Thecourtmust_reinstruct_Ԁthejuryifitis  d     ` apparentthatthejuryisconfusedonapoint H     ` oflaw.  ,|  8  8`      "Justasthelawimposesa_sua_ 6 _sponte_obligationtoinstructoncertain   principlesoflawinthefirstplace(those  rulesopenlyandcloselyconnectedwiththe h case)sodoesitimposeonthejudgeadutyto > _reinstruct_Ԁonthepointifitbecomesapparent d tohimthatthejurymaybeconfusedonthe : law."` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Valenzuela(1977)76_Cal.App_.3d218,221.)  8  8`      "Defendantcontendsthecourt's h refusaltofurtherexplaintheinstructions > violated[PenalCode]section1138,which  providesthatwhenthejury`desiretobe   informedonanypointoflawarisinginthe p ! case,...theinformationrequiredmustbe F!" given....'Thecourthasaprimarydutyto "l# helpthejuryunderstandthelegalprinciples "B$ itisaskedtoapply.[Citation.]Thisdoes #% notmeanthecourtmustalwayselaborateon $& thestandardinstructions.Wheretheoriginal t% ' instructionsarethemselvesfullandcomplete, J&!( thecourthasdiscretionundersection1138to  'p") determinewhatadditionalexplanationsare 'F#* sufficienttosatisfythejury'srequestfor ($+ information.[Citation]Indeed,comments )$, divergingfromthestandardareoftenrisky. x*%- [Citation.]...Butacourtmustdomorethan N+&. figurativelythrowupitshandsandtellthe $,t'/ juryitcannothelp.Itmustatleast  considerhowitcanbestaidthejury.It  shoulddecideastoeachjuryquestionwhether \ furtherexplanationisdesirable,orwhether 2 itshouldmerelyreiteratetheinstructions X alreadygiven.".` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Beardslee_(1991)53Cal.3d68,97.)      ` 7.Thecourthasdiscretiontogiveinstructionsat 6      `  thebeginningofthetrial,orbeforeorafter  j     `  closingargument.   N  8  8`      "[_D]efendant_Ԁcomplainsofthefact   thatthetrialcourtchosetogivethejury   itsinstructionsoncircumstantialevidenceat d  thebeginningratherthantheendofthe :  trial;thisprocedure,however,iswithinthe ` discretionofthecourt.(PenalCode1093, 6 subd.6.;Citation.)" ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Webb(1967)66Cal.2d107,128.)  8  8`      "Lambseekstodistinguisha d `charge'froman`instruction.'...However, : hisargumentiscontrarytoauthority.  [Citations.]`The"charge"consistsofhis  (thecourt's)"instructions,"andthelatter l termismorecommon.']Whileismaybe B generalpracticeforcourtsto`chargethe h jury'or`instructthejury'following > argument,whentoinstructajuryisamatter  withinthetrialcourt'sdiscretion.   [Citations.]"p !` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Lamb(1988)206_Cal.App_.3d397,400.) F!"    ` 8.Thecourtmustsubmitwritteninstructionstothe #%    `  juryuponrequestofthejury;otherwisethe $&    `  court hasdiscretionwhethertosubmitwritten % '    `  instructions . t&!( 8  8`       ` x` x 8  8`      "In1986,[PenalCode]section1093, .(~#* subdivision(6),wasamendedtoprovidefor )T$+ writteninstructionuponrequestbythejury. )*%, Thesectioncontinuestoprovideforan *&- exerciseofdiscretionintheabsenceofsuch +&. arequest."\,'/` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Sheldon(1989)48Cal.3d935,944     ` (originalemphasis).)  8  8`      "[_P]rior_Ԁtodeliberationsthetrial X courtindicatedtothejurythatit . `preferred'nottogivewritteninstructions.   Instead,thecourtaskedthejurytolistento   theoralinstructionsandinformthecourtif `  ithadanyquestionsthecourtcouldanswer. 6   ...[Par.]Inreviewingclaimsoferrorofthe  \  kindinvolvedhere,ourmaininquiryis  2  whetherthecourtabuseditsbroaddiscretion   infailingtoprovidewritteninstructions.   ...[Par.]Thejurytookonlyonedaytoreach d  itsguiltyverdict.Noquestionswereraised :  regardinganyoftheinstructions,andno `  requestforrereadinginstructionswasmade. 6 Thus,therecordcontainsnoevidence   indicatingthejurywasconfusedormisledby  theoralinstructionsgiven.[Citation.]We h concludethecourtdidnotabuseits > discretioninfailingtoprovidethejurywith d writtenguiltphaseinstructions.":` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Danielson_(1992)3Cal.4th691,710711.)     `    ` 9.Invitederror . h    `  Evenifdefensecounselacquiescesinorrequestsan " erroneousinstruction,theinstructionwillnonethelessbeheldto ~  beerroronappeal,unlessdefensecounselhasexpresseda *!z" deliberatetacticalpurposeinrequestingtheinstruction. "&$ 8  8`    "Intheabsenceofacleartactical $& purpose,thecourtsandcommentatorseschewa X% ' findingofthe`invitederror'thatexcusesa .&~!( trialjudgefromrenderingfullandcorrect 'T") instructionsonmaterialquestionsoflaw. '*#* _Witkin_Ԁhasstatedthat,whenthetrialcourt ($+ hasthedutytoinstruct,_sua__sponte_,onthe )$, rulesoflawnecessarilyinvolvedinacase, \*%- erroneousinstructionsare_reviewable_Ԁ`though 2+&. invitedbythedefendant'sownneglector ,X'/ mistake.'[Citation.]...`Afterall,itis  thelifeandlibertyofthedefendantina  casesuchasthisthatisathazardinthe \ trialandthereisacontinuingdutyuponthe 2 partofthetrialcourttoseetoitthatthe X juryareproperlyinstructeduponallmatters . pertinenttotheirdecisionofthecause.'   Accordingly,ifdefensecounselsuggestsor   accedestotheerroneousinstructionbecause `  ofneglectormistakewedonotfind`invited 6   error';onlyifcounselexpressesadeliberate  \  tacticalpurposeinsuggesting,resisting,or  2  accedingtoaninstruction,dowedeemitto   nullifythetrialcourt'sobligationto   instructinthecause."d ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Graham(1969)71Cal.2d303,319.) :  8  8`    "Theexistenceofsomeconceivable   tacticalpurposewillnotsupportafinding  thatdefensecounsel`invited'anerrorin h instructions.Therecordmustreflectthat > counselhadadeliberatetacticalpurpose."d` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Avalos_(1984)37Cal.3d216,229.) :   Oneofthemostfrequentareaswherethecourtsfinda  tacticalbasisforcounsel'sactions,iswherecounselstatesthat B thedefendantdoesnotwantinstructionsonlesserincluded > offenses.Thecourtsfrequentlyfind,fromcounsel'scomments,  thatatactical"allornothing"choicehasbeenmade: F ! 8  8`    "[_T]he_Ԁcourtaskeddefensecounsel !B# whetherdefendanthadpersonallyrequested "$ thatnoinstructionbegivenonseconddegree #% murder.Aftercounselrepliedinthe t$& affirmative,thecourtthenasked:#XCXX,XC9$#2X|\XXXC#XCXX2X|\R#,XCXXXCSothatthe J% ' defendant'spositionisthatitiseither <&!( murderinthefirstdegreeornotatall? 'b") Defensecounselreplied:#XCXX,XC S#1X|\XXXC#XCXX1X|\T#,XCXXXCThat'sright.'The '8#* courttheninquiredofdefendantpersonally (*$+ whetheritwashisdecisionalso.Defendant )%, repliedintheaffirmative....[Par][_W]e_ *%- believetheforegoingexchangeontherecord \+&. clearlyreflectsthatthefailuretoinstruct 2,'/ onseconddegreemurderresultedfroma  deliberatechoicebydefensecounselaswell  asdefendantpersonallytoutilizeanallor \ nothingtacticalstrategy."2` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Bunyard_(1988)45Cal.3d1189,12341235.) X   Nopersonalstatementofthedefendantisneededtoapply   invitederror;counsel'sstatement,ifitsetsforthatactical 6   basis,issufficient:  2  8  8`    "[_W]e_Ԁhaveneverrequiredapersonal   waiver[fromdefendant]beforeapplyingthe d  invitederrordoctrine.": ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Cooper(1991)53Cal.3d771,827.) `    Finally,notethattheinvitederrorrequirementthatthe  recordshowatacticalbasisonlyappliesӀtoasituationwherethe > courtwouldhavehada_sua__sponte_dutytogiveaninstruction. : Whereaninstructionmustbegivenonlyonrequest,simplefailure  torequestitoraccedingingivingsuchaninstructionconstitutes B invitederror: > 8  8`    "Defendantassertstherecordcontainsno  expressarticulationofhistacticalbasisfor p  requestingtheinstruction,andhencethe F ! invitederrorruledoesnotapply. !l" [Citation.]Butaswerecentlyheld !B# [citation],thatrequirementappliesonlywhen "$ thecourtisundera_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁdutyto #% instructinamannerotherthanitdid."t$&` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Gallego_(1990)52Cal.3d115,183.) J% '    ` 10.Bothdefendantanddefensecounselmustbe '#*    `  presentduringjuryinstructionsandduring ($+    `  othercommunicationsbetweenjudgeandjurors . )$, 8  8`      "[Exparte]communications[between $,t'/ trialjudgeandjurors]violateadefendant's  righttobepresent,andrepresentedby  counsel,atallcriticalstagesofhistrial, \ andthusconstitutefederalconstitutional 2 error..."X` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Wright(1990)52Cal.3d367,403.) .   However,thedefendant'sabsenceduringcertainproceedings   hasbeenheldnottoviolatethedefendant'srights: 6   8  8`      "Thecases...uniformlyhaveheld  2  thattheaccusedisnotentitledtobe   personallypresenteitherinchambersorat   benchdiscussionswhichoccuroutsideofthe d  jury'spresenceonquestionsoflaworother :  mattersinwhichdefendant'spresencedoesnot `  beara`reasonablysubstantialrelationtothe 6 fullnessofhisopportunitytodefendagainst   acharge.'[Citations.]"` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Jackson(1980)28Cal.3d264,309310.) h   Underthisrationale,ithasbeenheldthatthedefendantdoes d nothavetherighttobepresentduringtherereadingoftestimony  tothejury.(Peoplev.Douglas(1990)50Cal.3d468,517518.) l 8  8`    h` x` x @TT  % 8 III.RECENTANDLEADINGCASELAWONHOMICIDEINSTRUCTIONS%8Ag      ` Thesematerialsdiscussleadingprinciplesandrecent $t caselawonsomeofthemajorinstructionalareasinvolving   homicide.Thereisanenormousbodyofinstructionallaw |  concerninghomicide,andhomicideitselfisdividedintoanumber ( x  ofdifferentoffenses,rangingfromfirstdegreepremeditated $  murdertovehicularmanslaughter.CALJICcontainsmorethan50   standardinstructionsconcerninghomicide(notincludingnumerous ,|  otherinstructionsinvolvingspecialcircumstances),aswellasa ( largenumberofinstructionsonjustificationanddefensesto  homicidecharges,andadiscussionofeveryaspectofhomicide 0 instructionsisbeyondthescopeofthesematerials. ,   Thematerialsconcentrateoninstructionalareaswhichhave  beenmostfrequentlydiscussedinrecentcases.Foradditional 4 discussionsofissuesconcerninghomicide,somereferencesinclude: 0 CaliforniaJuryInstructions,Criminal[CALJIC],(6thEd.,1996,   andJanuary2001PocketPart),particularly8.00et.seq.; 8!" _Witkin_Ԁ&Epstein,CaliforniaCriminalLaw(3ded.2000),Vol.1, "4$ CrimesAgainstthePerson91245;_FORECITE_(2ded.,1994),Vol $& 2,8.00et.seq. <&!(   Pleaserememberthatthesematerialsdonotdiscussissues '8#* concerningthedeathpenaltyorspecialcircumstances.The )$, materialsalsodonotdiscussthestandardofprejudiceonappeal @+&. forinstructionalerror,anddonotdiscussissuesofvicarious  liability(suchasaidingandabetting).Theselattertopicsare \ coveredelsewhereinthecourseof_FDAP_'strainingseminaron X homicide.Additionally,thesematerialsdonotcovertheareaof   vehicularhomicide. `    % : A.ElementsoftheOffenses%:q .        ` 1.Homicide,MurderandManslaughterGenerally . ,|     `  Somebriefdefinitions: D   Homicideisthekillingofahumanbeingbyanotherhuman  being.(Peoplev.Caetano(1947)29Cal.2d616,618.)Homicides L aredividedintojustifiedorexcusablehomicides(whicharenot H unlawful),andfirstdegreemurder,seconddegreemurder,and  manslaughter. P   Ajustifiablehomicideisonecommittedinselfdefenseor L defenseofothers,orbyapeaceofficercarryingoutlawful   duties.(PenalCode196,197.)Anexcusablehomicideisone T!" committedbyaccidentwhereordinarycautionhasbeenusedinthe #P$ courseofdoingalawfulact,orwhencommittedbyaccidentinthe $& heatofpassionfromsufficientprovocationwhennoundueadvantage X&!( istakenorweaponused.(PenalCode195.) (T#*   Murderistheunlawfulkilling(i.e.,akillingwhichisnot )%, justifiableorexcusable)ofahumanbeingorfetuswithmalice,or \+&. inthecourseofcommittingcertainfelonies.(Seegenerally  Peoplev.Dillon(1983)34Cal.3d441.)Malicemaybeexpress \ (intenttokill)orimplied(intentionalactdangeroustolife, X donewithconsciousdisregardofrisktolife).     Firstdegreemurderispremeditatedmurder,ormurder `  committedinthecourseofthefelonieslistedinPenalCode189,  \  ormurdercommittedbycertainspecifiedmethods(poison,   destructivedevice,lyinginwait,torture,drivebyshooting). d    Seconddegreemurderisnonpremeditatedmurderormurder `  committedinthecourseoffeloniesnotlistedinPenalCode189   butwhichareinherentlydangeroustohumanlife. h   Manslaughteristheunlawfulkillingofahumanbeingwithout d malice.(PenalCode192.)Itconsistsofthreetypes:    Voluntarymanslaughter,whichisanunlawfulkillingupona l suddenquarrelorheatofpassionorwherethereisanhonestbut h unreasonablebeliefinselfdefense(Pen.Code192;Peoplev.  Flannel(1979)25Cal.3d668;InreChristianS.(1994)7Cal.4th p  768); !l"   Involuntarymanslaughter,whichisanunintentionalkillingin "$ thecommissionofcertainmisdemeanors,inthenegligentcommission t$& (orcommissioninanunlawfulmanner)oflawfulactswhichmight  &p!( producedeath(Pen.Code192),    4      ׀orinthecommissionofafelony '#* thatisnotinherentlydangeroustohumanlife;and    Vehicularmanslaughter(Pen.Code192). \   Thesubsectionsimmediatelybelowdiscusssomeinstructional X issuesrelatinggenerallytoalltheformsofhomicide.Following   these,instructionalissuesarepresentedconcerningtheelements `  ofeachformofhomicide.  \       `  (a)KillingofFetus. d     `    Untilveryrecently,itwashelderrorforthe `  trialcourttofailtoinstructthatthefetusmustbeviable.   (SeePeoplev.Davis(1994)7Cal.4th797.)However,inDavisthe h courtheldthatforhomicidescommencingafterthatcase"afetus d isdefinedas`theunbornoffspringinthe_postembryonic_Ԁperiod,  aftermajorstructureshavebeenoutlined.'[Citation.]Thisperiod l occursinhumans`sevenoreightweeksafterfertilization' h [citation]andisadeterminationtobemadebythetrieroffact."  (7Cal.4thatp.810.)Thus,itisnolongercorrecttoinstruct p  thejurythatthefetusmustbeviable. !l"   Davisindicatedthatthisnewrulewouldapplyatleastto "$ firstdegreefelonymurderwherethedeathofthefetuswasthe t$& resultofthedefendant'sdirectassaultonthemother.Thecourt  &p!( stated:"We...donotdiscussthequestionofpremeditatedmurder '#* (asopposedtofelonymurder)ofafetus."(7Cal.4thatp.810, x)$, fn.2.)Itisthusnotcertainhowthecourtwouldapplythenew  definitionoffetustopremeditatedmurder,andwhatkindsof \ knowledgeandintentonthedefendant'spartconcerningthefetus X wouldberequired.      `  (b)Causation. `     `    IntheleadingcaseofPeoplev.Roberts(1992)  \  2Cal.4th271,thecourtgaveanextendeddiscussionofproximate   cause.Thecourtheld:"Thecriminallawthusisclearthatfor d  liabilitytobefound,thecauseoftheharmnotonlymustbe `  direct,butalsonotsoremoteastofailtoconstitutethenatural   andprobableconsequenceofthedefendant'sact."(2Cal.4that h p.319.)Thecourtthusfounderrorwherethetrialjudge d instructedthejurytodisregard_foreseeability_Ԁindetermining  proximatecause.Thecourtheldthat"Aresultcannotbethe l naturalandprobablecauseofanactiftheactwasunforeseeable." h (Id.atpp.321322.)    TheRobertscourtfoundsufficientproximatecause,even p  thoughthevictimmayhavereceivedinadequatemedicaltreatment: !l" 8  8`      "Ifapersoninflictsadangerous "$ woundonanother,itisordinarilynodefense #% thatinadequatemedicaltreatmentcontributed t$& tothevictim'sdeath.[Citations.]Tobe J% ' sure,whenmedicaltreatmentisgrossly  &p!( improper,itmaydischargeliabilityfor &F") homicideifthemaltreatmentisthesolecause '#* ofdeathandhenceanunforeseeable (#+ interveningcause."x)$,` x` x    ` (2Cal.4thatp.312). N*%-   Similarly,theRobertscourtfoundthatwherethedefendant +J'/ stabbedanotherinmate,andtheinmatethengrabbedaknifeand,in  anunconsciousreaction,stabbedathirdparty,therewas \ sufficientproximatecause: X 8  8`      "Shotsthatcauseadriverto   accelerateimpulsivelyandrunoveranearby   pedestriansufficetoconferliability `  [citation];butifthedriver,stillupset, 6   hadproceededforseveralmilesbeforekilling  \  apedestrian,atsomepointtherequired  2  causalnexuswouldhavebecometooattenuated   fortheinitialbadactortobeliableeven   formanslaughter,muchlessforfirstdegree d  murder.: ` x` x   8  8`      [_W]e_Ԁconcludethat[indefendant's 6 case]theevidencesufficedtopermitthejury   toconcludethat[theultimatevictim's]death  wasthenaturalandprobableconsequenceof h defendant'sact.Thisissobecause[the > ultimatevictim]wasintheareainwhichharm d could_forseeably_Ԁoccurasaresultofaprison : stabbing....Thejurywasentitledtofind  thatthedistance[theinitialvictim]pursued  [hisattackers]wasnotsogreatastobreak l thechainofcausation."B` x` x    ` (2Cal.4thatp.321.) h   TheRobertscourtdidnotethat"principlesofproximatecause  maysometimesassignhomicideliabilitywhen,foreseeableornot, p  theconsequencesofadangerousactdirectedatasecondperson !l" causeanimpulsivereactionthatsonaturallyleadstoathird "$ person'sdeaththattheevilactorisdeemedworthyofpunishment." t$& (2Cal.4thatp.317.)However,thecourt'sopiniononthispoint  &p!( seemsunclear,sincethecourtwentontostatethatacausemust '#* be"notsoremoteastofailtoconstitutethenaturalandprobable x)$, consequenceofthedefendant'sact,"(Id.atp.319),andthat"a $+t&. resultcannotbethenaturalandprobablecauseofanactifthe  actwasunforeseeable."(Id.atpp.321322.)Inanyevent,the \ Robertscourtmadeclearthatatleastforthevastmajorityof X cases,proximatecausemeansaresultthatisdirect,naturaland   probable. `    FollowingRoberts,CALJICreviseditsinstructiononproximate  \  cause(CALJIC3.40;seealsoCALJIC8.55whichrequiresfor   homicidesanunlawfulactcausingdeath,andinstructsthejudgeto d  giveCALJIC3.40).Therevisedinstructionnowstates:"Acause `  ...isan[act][or][omission]thatsetsinmotionachainof   eventsthatproducesasadirect,naturalandprobableconsequence h ofthe[act][or][omission]the[resultofthecrime]andwithout d whichthe[resultofthecrime]wouldnotoccur."    ThisrevisedinstructionwasupheldinPeoplev.Temple(1993) l 19_Cal.App_.4th1750. h   TheTemplecourtalsoheldthattherewasnoerrorinthe  trialcourt'srejectionofrequesteddefenseinstructions p  amplifyingCALJIC3.40bystatingthat"Aproximatecauseisa !l" causewhichcouldreasonablyhavebeenforeseen,"andthat"An "$ unforeseen...interveningcausewhichproducesaresultwhich t$& couldnothavebeenforeseenisnotaproximatecause."(19  &p!( _Cal.App_.4thatp.1756n.9.)TheTemplecourtgavenoreasonswhy '#* theseinstructionswereproperlyrejected,butthecourtnotedthat x)$, theword`foreseeable'isnotitselfpartofdefinitionof $+t&. proximatecause.    Courtshaveheldthatcausationisbrokenwhentheactofthe \ victim,orsomeotheract,amountstoa"supersedingcause:" X 8  8`      "Ithaslongbeentherulein   criminalprosecutionsthatthecontributory   negligenceofthevictimisnotadefense. `  [Citations.]Inordertoexoneratea 6   defendantthevictim'sconductmustnotonly  \  beacauseofhisinjury,itmustbea  2  supersedingcause.`Adefendantmaybe   criminallyliableforaresultdirectlycaused   byhisactevenifthereisanother d  contributingcause.Ifaninterveningcause :  isanormalandreasonablyforeseeableresult `  ofdefendant'soriginalacttheintervening 6 actis"dependent"andnotasuperseding   cause,andwillnotrelievedefendantof  liability.'[Citation.]...Thus,itisonly h anunforeseeableinterveningcause,an > extraordinaryandabnormaloccurrence,which d risestothelevelofanexonerating, : supersedingcause....`Whendefendant's  conductcausespanicanactdoneunderthe  influenceofpanicorextremefearwillnot l negativecausalconnectionunlessthereaction B iswhollyabnormal.'[Citation.]"h` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Armitage(1987)194_Cal.App_.3d405,420 >    ` 421.)    InPeoplev.Morse(1992)2_Cal.App_.4th620,638,thecourt p  heldthat"evidencethevictimintentionallycausedhisowndeath !l" constitutesacausationdefense...."(Originalemphasis.)    5       "$   Morerecently,inthecompanioncasesofPeoplev.Cervantes t$& (2001)26Cal.4th860andPeoplev.Sanchez(2001)26Cal.4th834,  theCaliforniaSupremeCourthastakenontheformidabletaskof \ clarifyingconceptsofconcurrentandsupercedingcausation_inthe_ X contextofgangrelatedshootings.InPeoplev.Cervantes,supra,   defendant,agangmember,shotamemberofanothergangwhotried `  todefuseanargumentataparty.Defendantfled.Ashort#XCXX,XCHT#,XCXXXCtime  \  later,inretaliation,membersofthatothergangshotandkilled   amemberofdefendant'sgang,anddefendantwasconvictedofthat d  murder.Theactualshootersdidnotwitnessdefendantsact,and `  defendantwasnotpresentatthescenewhenthevictimwaskilled.   Defendantwastriedandconvictedofseconddegreemurderona h  provocativeactimpliedmalicemurdertheory.TheSupremeCourt d reversedCervantesconviction,holdingtherewasinsufficient  evidencethathis provocativeact!shootingarivalgangmember l atheparty!wasaproximatecauseofthevictimsdeath. [_T]he_ h criticalfactthatdistinguishesthiscasefromotherprovocative  actmurdercasesisthatheretheactualmurdererswerenot p  respondingtodefendant'sprovocativeactbyshootingbackathim !l" oranaccomplice,inthecourseofwhichsomeonewaskilled... "$ .Tothecontrary,theactsoftheactualmurderersherewere t$& themselvescriminal,felonious,andperpetratedwithmalice  &p!( aforethought.Thefatalshotswerefired,notatthedefendantor '#* anaccomplice,butinsteadatathirdparty...whowasnota x)$, partytotheinitialprovocativeact.Itcanfurtherbesaidthat $+t&. themurderersofCabrera"_intend[ed_]toexploitthesituation  createdby[defendant],but[were]notactinginconcertwithhim," \ acircumstancethatis"normallyheldtorelievethefirstactor X [defendant]ofcriminalresponsibility."(Hart&_Honor_,Causation   intheLaw,supra,atp.326,fn.omitted.)Inshort,nobodyforced `  the[rivalgangs]murderousresponseinthiscase,ifindeedit  \  wasadirectresponsetodefendant'sactofshooting....The   willfulandmaliciousmurderof[thevictim]atthehandsofothers d  wasanindependentinterveningactonwhichdefendant'sliability `  forthemurdercouldnotbebased.(26Cal.4thatpp.872874)     InSanchez,supra,bycontrast,defendantandcodefendant h wererivalgangmemberswhoengagedinanexchangeofgunfireona d publicstreet#XCXX,XC#,XCXXXCԀduringadrivebyshooting.Defendantshotat  _codefendant_Ԁfromacar.Asinglebulletkilledaneighborwho l happenedtobeworkingonhiscarnearby.Theevidencedidnot h establishwhosebulletkilledtheneighbor.Bothdefendantswere  convictedoffirstdegreemurder.Thecourtofappealreversed, p  concludingthatthejurymusthavebeenconvicteddefendantof !l" firstdegreemurderonanunsupportableprovocativeactimplied "$ malicemurdertheoryelevatedtofirstdegreebyoperationofthe t$& felonymurderrule.TheSupremeCourtreversedthecourtof  &p!( appeal,holdingthatbothdefendantsshotsateachotherwere '#* substantialconcurrentandproximatecausesoftheinnocent x)$, bystandersdeath.Sanchezfirstdegreemurderwassustainable $+t&. eitheronapremeditationtheoryorbyoperationofthefelony  murderrule(intentionaldischargeofafirearmfromamotor \ vehiclewiththespecificintenttoinflictdeath),coupledwith X transferredintent(i.e.,theintenttokill_codefendant_   transferredtotheinnocentbystander.)Justices_Kennard_Ԁand `  _Werdegar_Ԁagreedwiththeresultbutpreferredtoexplaintheresult  \  intermsofacausalchainofeventsthatproximatelycausedthe   _vitvim_sdeath,ratherthanasaconcurrenceofcauses,and d  contrastedtheSanchezfactswiththosein_Cervantez_,which `  establishedasuperveningcausethatcutoffproximatecausation.   Justice_Werdegar_Ԁthinkstheprovocativeacttheoryexplainsboth h SanchezandCervantes,butfailstoexplainhowthatimpliedmalice d murdertheorygetsthedefendanttofirstdegreemurder,which  requiresexpressmalice.#XCXX,XC#,XCXXXCԀ l    `  (c)AidingandAbetting. h    ` DrivebyshootingshavealsopromptedtheCalifornia  _Surpeme_ԀCourttoreexamineprinciplesofaidingandabettingas p  theyariseinhomicideandattemptedhomicidecases.InPeoplev. !l" McCoy(2001)25Cal.4th1111,theCourtclarifiedsomeofthe "$ confusionaboutthenatureandextentoftheaiderandabettors t$& liabilityfortheintended,andcharged,actsofthedirect  &p!( perpetrator#XCXX,XC#,XCXXXCthatwasengenderedbyitsdiscussions,inPeoplev. '#* _Prettyman_(1996)14Cal.4th1114andPeoplev._Croy_(1985)41 x)$, Cal.4th248#XCXX,XC#,XCXXXC,oftheaiderandabettorsliabilityforthe $+t&. unintendedcrimesthatarethenaturalandprobableconsequencesof  thedirectperpetratorsacts.#XCXX,XC#,XCXXXCԀ#XCXX,XC#,XCXXXCԀInMcCoy,supra,bothdefendants \ firedgunsfromacar,butonlythefirstdefendantfiredthefatal X shots.Thefirstdefendantclaimedselfdefense,andthecourtof   appealreversedhisconvictionforinstructionalerror.It `  reversedMcCoysconvictionaswell,onthetheorythatasanaider  \  andabettorhecouldnotbefoundguiltyofacrimegreaterthan   theactualperpetrator.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtdisagreed, d  holdingthatanaiderandabettorsliabilityisbasedonthe `  actionsofthedirectperpetrator#XCXX,XC=#,XCXXXCԀaswellashisown,butheis   liableforhisownmens_rea_,nottheotherpersons.(25Cal.4th h atp.1118.)Thus, assumesomeone,letuscallhimIago,falsely d tellsanotherperson,whomwewillcall_Othello_,that_Othello_'s  wife,_Desdemona_,washavinganaffair,hopingthat_Othello_Ԁwould l killherinafitofjealousy._Othello_ԀdoessowithoutIago's h furtherinvolvement.Inthatcase,dependingontheexact  circumstancesofthekilling,_Othello_Ԁmightbeguiltyof p  manslaughter,ratherthanmurder,onaheatofpassiontheory. !l" _Othello_'sguiltofmanslaughter,however,shouldnotlimitIago's "$ guiltifhisownculpabilityweregreater.Iagoshouldbeliable t$& forhisownactsaswell_Othello_'s,whichheinducedand  &p!( encouraged.ButIago'scriminalliability,as_Othello_'s,wouldbe '#* basedonhisownpersonalmens_rea_.If,asourhypothetical x)$, suggests,Iagoactedwithmalice,hewouldbeguiltyofmurdereven $+t&. if_Othello_,whodidtheactualkilling,wasnot.(25Cal.4that  pp.11211122.)Presumably,thismeanstheaiderandabettors \ liabilitycanbelessthan,aswellasgreaterthan,thedirect X perpetrators.Thecourtmadeclearthat onlyanaiderand   abettor'sguiltoftheintendedcrimeisrelevanthere.Nothingwe l  sayinthisopinionnecessarilyappliestoanaiderandabettor's  h  guiltofanunintendedcrimeunderthenaturalandprobable   consequencesdoctrine.(25Cal.4thatp.1117) p    Furtherexplicationofaidingandabettingisintheworks. l  OnMarch28,2001,theCourtgrantedreviewinPeoplev.Lee,  S094597,formerlyat85_Cal.app_.4th706,mod86,onthequestion t whether,inordertobeconvictedofanattempttocommitwillful,  p deliberateandpremeditatedmurderunderPenalCodesection664,  subdivision(a),anaiderandabettorpersonallymusthaveacted x withpremeditationanddeliberation,andifso,whatstandardof $t prejudicialerrorappliestoafailuretosoinstructthejury.   #XCXX,XC/#,XCXXXC   `  (d)JuryUnanimity. |     `    Ithasrepeatedlybeenheldthataunanimity (!x" instructionisnotrequiredconcerningdifferenttheoriesof "$$ murder:"[_I]n_Ԁaprosecutionforfirstdegreemurderitisnot $& necessarythatalljurorsagreeononeormoreofseveraltheories ,&|!( proposedbytheprosecution;itissufficientthateachjuroris '(#* convincedbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefendantisguiltyof )$, firstdegreemurderasthatoffenseisdefinedbythestatute." 0+&. (Peoplev.Milan(1973)9Cal.3d185,195.)    Thisholdinghasbeenappliedinsituationswherethejuryis \ decidingwhetherthemurderwaspremeditatedorcommittedinthe X courseofafelony,andwherethejuryisdecidingwhetherthe   defendantwastheactualperpetratororanaiderandabettor: `  8  8`      "Ajurymayconvictadefendantof  \  firstdegreemurder,however,withoutmakinga  2  unanimouschoiceofoneormoreofseveral   theoriesproposedbytheprosecution,e.g.,   thatthemurderwasdeliberateand d  premeditatedorthatitwascommittedinthe :  courseofafelony....[Ithasalsobeenheld `  that]aconvictionofseconddegreemurderdid 6 notrequireunanimousagreementbythejurors   onwhethertheaccusedwastheactual  perpetratororwasanaiderandabettor."h` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Beardslee_(1991)53Cal.3d68,92.) >   Thecourtin_Beardslee_didnotethatwhere"thedefendant : committedmultipleindependentacts,anyofwhichcouldhavelead  to[thedeath],"aunanimityinstructionwouldberequired.(53 B Cal.3datp.93.)However,theactswouldneedtobeindependent: > "`[_W]here_Ԁtheactsweresubstantiallyidenticalinnature,sothat  anyjurorbelievingoneacttookplacewouldinexorablybelieveall F ! actstookplace,theinstructionisnotnecessarytothejury's !B# understandingofthecase.'[Citation.]"(Ibid.)The_Beardslee_ #% courtdistinguishedacasesuchasPeoplev._Dellinger_(1984)163 J% ' _Cal.App_.3d284,"whereafirstdegreemurderconvictionwas &F") reversedonthegroundthatthetrialcourtshouldhaveinstructed (#+ thejuryonitsownmotionthataconvictionrequiredtheir N*%- unanimousagreementonwhetherthedefendantkilledthetwoyear +J'/ oldvictimbygivinghercocaineorkilledherbyinflictinga  fatalblowtoherhead."(Ibid.)The_Beardslee_courtnotedthat"A \ requirementofjuryunanimitytypicallyappliestoactsthatcould X havebeenchargedasseparateoffenses."(Id.atp.92.)_    6      _     TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,inthepluralityopinionin `  _Schad_v.Arizona(1991)501U.S.624,111_S.Ct_.2491,heldthatit  \  waspermissiblenottorequireunanimityindecidingthat   "petitionermurderedeitherwithpremeditationorinthecourseof d  committingarobbery."(111_S.Ct_.atp.2496.)The_Schad_plurality `  didindicate:"Thatisnottosay,however,thattheDueProcess   ClauseplacesnolimitsonaState'scapacitytodefinedifferent h coursesofconduct,orstatesofmind,asmerelyalternativemeans d ofcommittingasingleoffense,therebypermittingadefendant's  convictionwithoutjuryagreementastowhichcourseorstate l actuallyoccurred."(Id.atp.2497.)Thelimitsareinherentin h therequirementthat"astatutemaynotforbidconductintermsso  vaguethatpeopleofcommonintelligencewouldberelegatedto p  differentguessesaboutitsmeaning...."(Ibid.) !l"   The_Schad_plurality,however,declinedtosetforthaspecific "$ testfordeterminingwhensuchlimitshavebeenreached:"Itis, t$& aswehavesaid,impossibletolaydownanysingleanalyticalmodel  &p!( fordeterminingwhentwomeansaresodisparateastoexemplifytwo  inherentlyseparateoffenses."(Id.atp.2503.)Theplurality \ analyzedthespecificsituationin_Schad_,holdingthatpremeditated X murderandfelonymurdercanreasonablybeviewedasinvolving   equivalentmoralculpability,andthereforeitwaspermissibleto `  unitethosetwomeansofmurderintoasinglecrime.Justice  \  Scaliaconcurredwiththeplurality,bylookingtohistorical   practiceandconcludingthat"itisimpossiblethatapracticeas d  oldasthecommonlawandstillinexistenceinthevastmajority `  ofStatesdoesnotprovidethatprocesswhichis`due.'"(Id.atp.   2507.) h   Finally,notethatintheveryrecentcaseofPeoplev. d _Santamaria_(1994)8Cal.4th903,thecourtheldthatthelackofa  unanimityrequirementforthejuryasawhole,concerningtheories l ofmurder,alsoappliestoeachjuror:"Notonlyisthereno h unanimityrequirementastothetheoryofguilt,theindividual  jurorsthemselvesneednotchooseamongthetheories,solongas p  eachisconvincedofguilt.Sometimes,asprobablyoccurredhere, !l" thejurysimplycannotdecidebeyondareasonabledoubtthatthe "$ defendantwasthedirectperpetrator,andasimilardoubtthathe t$& wastheaiderandabettor,butnosuchdoubtthathewasoneorthe  &p!( other."(8Cal.4thatp.919.) '#*    `  (e)InvitedError. x)$,    `    Asnotedinthediscussionofgeneraljury $+t&. instructionprinciples,supraatpage25,thetraditionaldoctrine  ofinvitederrorrequiresanexpresstacticalstatementbydefense \ counsel.However,recentlythecourtspossiblyhaverelaxedthat X requirement,byexaminingarecordthatisnotentirelyexplicit   andinferringatacticalbasisforcounsel'sactions.Thiswas `  recentlysummedupregardinghomicidecasesinPeoplev.DeLeon  \  (1992)10_Cal.App_.4th815,823824:   8  8`      "Thetestforinstructional`invited d  error,'asstatedbyPeoplev.Graham(1969) :  71Cal.2d303,318requiresthat`defense `  counseldeliberatelyandexpressly,asa 6 matteroftrialtactics,objectedtothe   renditionofaninstruction.'Recent  CaliforniaSupremeCourtcaseshaveeasedthe h `expressly'requirementandhavefound > `invitederror'wheretacticalobjectionwas d _inferable_Ԁfromtherecord.(Peoplev.Duncan : (1991)53Cal.3d955,969970[Allornothing  tacticalstrategy];Peoplev.Cooper(1991)53  Cal.3d771,827[Allornothingtactical l strategy];Peoplev._Whitt_(1990)51Cal.3d B 620,641[`Deathrow'redemptionstrategy].)"h` x` x   However,thecourtshavealsofoundnoinvitederrorwhereno  tacticalbasiscouldbefoundforcounsel'sactions.(Peoplev. p  _Beardslee_(1991)53Cal.3d68;Peoplev.DeLeon,supra.) !l" Nonetheless,itwouldbeasignificantchangeinthedoctrineif "$ thecourtsavoidthe"express"tacticalbasisrequirement t$& altogether,andfindinvitederrorwherethecourtitselfcan  &p!( imaginesometacticalreasonwhycounselmighthaveactedinthe '#* wayheorshedid. x)$,    ` 2.FirstDegreeMurder . $+t&.    `  Theelementsoffirstdegreepremeditatedmurderare  generally:(1)Unlawfulkillingofahumanbeingorafetus;(2) \ withmalice;(3)withpremeditationanddeliberation. X   Inaddition,murder(i.e.,anunlawfulkillingwithmalice)   perpetratedbycertainspecifiedmeansisstatutorilydefinedas `  firstdegreemurder:(1)destructivedeviceorexplosivedevice;  \  (2)poison;(3)lyinginwait;(4)torture;(5)drivebyshooting;   (6)murderduringcertainfelonies. d     `  (a)PremeditatedMurder. `     `    (1)ExpressMalice.     Maliceisanelementoffirstdegreepremeditatedmurderand h seconddegreemurder(Peoplev.Dillon(1983)34Cal.3d441,475), d andthusthejurymustbeinstructedonmalice.Maliceisdivided  intotwokinds:expressmaliceandimpliedmalice. l   Expressmalicemeansanintentiontokill.Theleadingcase h ofPeoplev._Saille_(1991)54Cal.3d1103,11131114explained:  8  8`      "[PenalCode]Section188,as p  amended[in1981],nowprovides:`...[Malice] F ! isexpresswhenthereismanifesteda !l" deliberateintentionunlawfullytotakeaway !B# thelifeofafellowcreature....Whenitis "$ shownthatthekillingresultedfromthe #% intentionaldoingofanactwithexpress... t$& maliceasdefinedabove,noothermentalstate J% ' needbeshowntoestablishthementalstateof  &p!( maliceaforethought.Neitheranawarenessof &F") theobligationtoactwithinthegeneralbody '#* oflawsregulatingsocietynoractingdespite (#+ suchawarenessisincludedwithinthe x)$, definitionofmalice.'N*%-` x` x 8  8`      [Par.]...This[latter]sentence +J'/ clearlyprovidesthatoncethetrieroffact  findsadeliberateintentionunlawfullyto  kill,noothermentalstateneedbeshownto \ establishmaliceaforethought....Afterthis 2 amendmentofsection188,expressmaliceand X anintentunlawfullytokillareoneandthe . same." ` x` x    ` (Italicsdeleted.)     The_Saille_courtpointedoutthattheLegislatureleft 6   unchangedthedefinitionofvoluntarymanslaughterinPenalCode  2  192,meaningthatevenwherethereisanunlawfulintenttokill,   malicecanbenegated: :  8  8`      "[_T]he_ԀLegislatureleftunchanged 6 thedefinitionofvoluntarymanslaughterin   section192....Section192definesvoluntary  manslaughterasthe`unlawfulkillingofa h humanbeingwithoutmalice...[Par.]...upon > asuddenquarrelorheatofpassion.'Thus, d pursuanttothelanguageofsection188,when : anintentionalkillingisshown,malice  aforethoughtisestablished.Section192,  however,negatesmalicewhentheintentional l killingresultsfromasuddenquarrelorheat B ofpassioninducedbyadequateprovocation."h` x` x    ` (54Cal.3datp.1114.) >   Thecourtin_Saille_alsopointedoutthatthedefinitionof  expressmaliceinPenalCode188,a"deliberateintention"to F ! kill,doesnotmeanthattheword"deliberate"addsanyfurther !B# requirementtoanintentiontokill: #% 8  8`      "Onemightarguethattheword J% ' `deliberate'hasasignificanceinthe  &p!( distinctionbetweenmurderandmanslaughter. &F") Thatargumentwouldbemistaken.Asnotedin '#* _In_reThomasC.(1986)183_Cal.App_.3d786, (#+ 796797:`InPeoplev.Valentine(1946)28 x)$, Cal.2d121ourSupremeCourtpointedoutthat N*%- itwas"incorrect[todifferentiate] $+t&. manslaughterfrommurderonthebasisof +J'/ deliberateintent....Deliberateintent...  isnotanessentialelementofmurder,as  such.Itisanessentialelementofoneclass \ onlyoffirstdegreemurderandisnotatall 2 anelementofseconddegreemurder." X [Citations.]Indeed,thestandardCALJIC . instruction(No.8.11(1983rev.)hasbeen   heldtobeacorrectdefinitionofexpress   maliceaforethought,despitethefactthatit `  doesnotusetheword`deliberate'asusedin 6   PenalCodesection188,butmerelystatesthat  \  `[_m]alice_Ԁisexpresswhenthereismanifested  2  anintentionunlawfullytokillahuman   being.'(CALJIC8.11.)Inshort,`deliberate   intention,'asstatedinPenalCodesection d  188,merelydistinguishes`express'from :  `implied'malice,whereaspremeditationand `  deliberationisoneclassoffirstdegree 6 murder.'[Citation.]" ` x` x    ` (54Cal.3datpp.11141115.)    Insum,expressmaliceisdefinedanintentionunlawfullyto > kill."`Theadverb"unlawfully"intheexpressmalicedefinition : meanssimplythatthereisnojustification,excuse,ormitigation  forthekillingrecognizedbythelaw.'[Citation.]" B (Peoplev._Saille_,supra,atp.1115.) >   The_Saille_courtheldthatevenunderthisnarroweddefinition  ofexpressmalice:"Adefendant...isstillfreetoshowthat F ! becauseofhismentalillnessorvoluntaryintoxication,hedidnot !B# infactformtheintentunlawfullytokill(i.e.,didnothave #% maliceaforethought)."(54Cal.3datpp.11161117.)However,the J% ' _Saille_courtheldthatthereisno_sua__sponte_dutyonthepartof &F") thetrialjudgetoinstructthejuryontherelationshipof (#+ voluntaryintoxicationormentalillnesstomalice;such N*%- instructionsmustberequestedbythedefendant,andmustmeetthe +J'/ requirementsofpinpointinstructions.    CALJICadoptedanewinstruction,No.4.21.1inresponseto \ _Saille_,instructingajuryonvoluntaryintoxicationasitrelates X tospecificintent.InPeoplev.Aguirre(1995)31_Cal.App_.4th391   thecourtheldthatCALJICNo.4.21.1correctlystatedthe `  applicablelaw,wasnotconfusingtoajury,anddidnotcreatean  \  impermissibleburdenshiftingpresumptionrelievingtheprosecution   ofprovingspecificintentorrequiringthedefendanttoprove d  intoxication. `    Finally,concerningmalice,thereisadoctrine,knownas   "transferredintent,"inwhichthedefendant'smalicetowardshis h orherintendedvictimisimputedtowardsanaccidentalvictim: d "[_U]nder_Ԁthecommonlawdoctrineoftransferredintent,ifAshoots  atBwithmaliceaforethoughtbutinsteadkillsC,whoisstanding l nearby,Aisdeemedliableformurdernotwithstandinglackof h intenttokillC."(Peoplev.Roberts(1992)2Cal.4th271,317.)  AalsocanbeconvictedfortheattemptedmurderofBandthe p  murderofC.(Peoplev.Scott(1996)14Cal.4th544.) !l"   However,inPeoplev._Czahara_(1988)203_Cal.App_.3d1468, "$ 1471,thecourtheldthat"[A]juryshouldnotbeinstructedon t$& transferredintenttokillwhenadefendantischargedwith  &p!( multipleattemptedmurdersarisingfromasingleact."Thecourt '#* discussedatlengththehistoryofthetransferredintentrule,and x)$, concludedthat: $+t&. 8  8`      "Whereanactintendedtokillone  personinjuresanotherbut,forwhatever  reason,doesnotconstituteanattemptonthe \ intendedvictim'slife,aninstructionon 2 transferredintentmaybeproper.Butwherea X singleactisallegedtobeanattemptontwo . persons'lives,theintenttokillshouldbe   evaluatedindependentlyastoeachvictim,and   thejuryshouldnotbeinstructedtotransfer `  intentfromonetoanother."6  ` x` x    ` (203_Cal.App_.3datp.1475.)  \    InPeoplev.Hayden(1994)22_Cal.App_.4th48,5657thecourt   notedthatthe_Czahara_caseandsomeothersinvolvedthesituation d  wherethereismorethanonevictim: `  8  8`      "Thesecasesinvolvetwomurdersor   attemptedmurders,includingbothan  `intended'victim(inthetruesensei.e., h thedefendantknewwhothevictimwasand > intendedtokillhimorher)andanunintended d victim.Becausethefictionof`transferred' : intenttokillisnotnecessarytoholdthe  defendantliablefortheactualmurderofthe  intendedvictim,somecaseshaveheldthatit l isinapplicablewhenboththeintendedvictim B andanunintendedvictimarekilled."h` x` x Thedoctrineoftransferredintentcanbesomewhatconfusing, > especiallyinthecontextofmultiplekillings.    7      ׀CALJIC,inits  usenotetoCALJICNo.8.65(ontransferredintent),citesPeople F ! v._Birreuta_(1984)162_Cal.App_.3d454,andstatesthatthe !B# instructionshouldnotbegiveninthesituationofmultiple #% killingswhereanintendedvictimiskilled:"Thisinstruction  shouldnotbegiveninacasewheretheevidenceestablishesthat \ defendantintendedtokillA,actuallykilledAasintended,but X accidentallyalsokilledB.Defendanthasarighttohavejury   instructedthatthekillingofBisonlyseconddegreemurderor `  manslaughter.Thedoctrineoftransferredintentdoesnotapply  \  becausepublicpolicyissatisfiedwhendefendantisconvictedof   firstdegreemurderforkillingA." d    Notethatcurrentcaselawholdsthedoctrineoftransferred `  intentdoesnotapplytoattemptedmurder.(Peoplev._Calderon_   (1991)232_Cal.App_.3d930.)However,theCaliforniaSupremeCourt h willberevisitingthatquestionsoon.InPeoplev.Bland,S097340 d (unpublishedCAopinion),arguedApril3,2002,thequestion  presentediswhetherthetransferredintentdoctrinepermits l convictionfortheattemptedpremeditatedmurderofanunintended h victimwhentheintendedvictimwaskilled.    TransferredintentalsofiguresinPeoplev.Lee,S094597 p  (formerlyat85_Cal.App_.4th706,mod.86,reviewgranted3/28/01).#XCXX,XC2#,XCXXXC !l" InanunpublishedportionofLee,thecourtofappealheldthere "$ wassubstantialevidencetosupportatransferredintent t$& instructionontheweaktheorythatthedefendantshad  &p!( unintentionallykilledtwochildrenwhowereinnocentbystanders, '#* asopposedtointentionallykillingeveryoneoutsideanapartment x)$, buildingtargetedbecauseofitsassociationwitharivalgang. $+t&. Whenreviewwasgranted,however,theissueswerelimitedtothose  pertainingtoaiderandabettorliabilityforattemptedfirst \ degreemurder. X    `    (2)ImpliedMalice.     Seediscussionofimpliedmaliceinconnectionwithsecond `  degreemurder,infraatpage80.   p     \     `    (3)PresumptionofMalice.     Thereisasomewhatconfusingprovisionoflawconcerning d  malice,statedinPenalCode189.5[formerlyPenalCode1105]: `  8  8`      "Uponatrialformurder,the   commissionofthehomicidebythedefendant  beingproved,theburdenofproving h circumstancesofmitigation,orthatjustify > orexcuseit,devolvesuponthedefendant, d unlesstheproofonthepartofthe : prosecutiontendstoshowthatthecrime  committedonlyamountstomanslaughter,or  thatthedefendantwasjustifiableor l excusable."B` x` x j:  Thisprovisionhasbeenheldtomean:"Whenthekillingis > provedtohavebeencommittedbythedefendant,andnothingfurther  isshown,thepresumptionoflawisthatitwasmaliciousandan F ! actofmurder;..."(Peoplev.Craig(1957)49Cal.2d313,319.) !B#   Thisconceptofa"presumption"ofmalicehascaused #% considerableconfusion.However,alonglineofcaseshasheld J% ' clearlythatallthissectionmeansisthatsomecircumstancesof &F") thekillingitselfmaybeenoughtopermitajurytoinfermalice. (#+ Thereisnorequirementthatthedefendantbearanyburdenofproof N*%- onlackofmalice;however,wherecircumstancesaresufficientto +J'/ showmalice,thenthedefendantmaybearaburdenofproducing  evidencetoraiseareasonabledoubtaboutmalice: \ 8  8`      "Properlyinterpreted,section X [189.5]merelyreflectsthecommonsense . observationthatthecircumstancesofa   killingmayandoftendosuggestaninference   ofmalice.Undersuchcircumstances,aprima `  faciecaseofmurderisestablishedandthe 6   burdenofproducingevidencenegatingmalice  \  fallstothedefendantwhois,needlessto  2  say,inthebestpositiontoproducesuch   evidence.Whereeithertheprosecution   evidenceorevidencepresentedbythe d  defendantissufficienttoraiseareasonable :  doubtastowhetherthekillingwasmalicious, `  theprosecutionbearstheburdenofpersuading 6 thejuryastothedefendant'smentalstate.   Wheresuchevidenceisnonexistent,however,  theprosecution'sburdenhasalreadybeen h met.">` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Hyde(1985)166_Cal.App_.3d463,475.) d   Thislimitationon189.5haslongbeentherule.The  CaliforniaSupremeCourt,inalineofcasesstemmingfromPeople l v._Cornett_(1948)33Cal.2d33,42,heldthat: h 8  8`      "Thissectiondoesnotsetfortha  rulerelatingtotheburdenofproof,but  merelydeclaresaruleofprocedurethat p  imposesonthedefendantonlyadutyofgoing F ! forwardwiththeevidenceofmitigating !l" circumstances....[_T]he_Ԁdefendantisnot !B# requiredtoprovemitigatingcircumstancesby "$ apreponderanceoftheevidence,butneedonly #% introduceevidenceofsuchcircumstancesto t$& raiseareasonabledoubtofhisguilt."J% '` x` x   Ofcriticalimportanceintermsofjuryinstructions,the &F") casesareclearthatitiserrorforthecourttoinstructthejury (#+ atallintermsofPenalCode189.5.Thebestsummaryand N*%- discussionofthehistoryofthiscaselawisfoundinPeoplev. +J'/ Kelley(1980)113_Cal.App_.3d1005,10111012:  8  8`    "`Cloakedinwhatever_verbalisms_,section \ [189.5]shouldbeexcludedfromjury 2 instructions.Beyondtheapparentfactthat X itgeneratesmoredifficultythanvalue,itis . noneofthejury'saffairandplaysno   legitimateroleintheirdeliberations.By   thetimethecourtinstructsthejury,section `  [189.5]hasfulfilleditsroleinthetrial. 6   Havingdisappearedfromthescene,itplaysno  \  partinthejurydeliberations.'[Citation.]" 2 ` x` x   KelleynotedthatCALJIChasdeletedajuryinstructionbased   onPenalCode189.5,becausetheCALJICcommentatorsexplained :  "theconceptunderlyingPenalCodesection[189.5]isnotpertinent 6 tothejury'sdeliberations.[Citation.]"(113_Cal.App_.3datp.  1012.)TheKelleycourtalsonotedthattheUnitedStatesSupreme > Court,in_Mullaney_v.Wilbur(1975)421U.S.684,704,struckdown : asaviolationofdueprocessaMainestatutesimilarto189.5,  whichhadbeeninterpretedtoshifttheburdenofprooftothe B defendant:"[_T]he_ԀDueProcessClauserequirestheprosecutionto > provebeyondareasonabledoubttheabsenceoftheheatofpassion  onsuddenprovocationwhentheissueisproperlypresentedina F ! homicidecase." !B#   Insum,PenalCode189.5isessentiallyunnecessary.The #% SupremeCourthasnoted: J% ' 8  8`    "Asdefendantsuggests,theprosecution &F") mustproveeveryelementofachargedoffense '#* beyondareasonabledoubt.Theaccusedhasno (#+ burdenofprooforpersuasion,evenastohis x)$, defenses.[Citations.]However,oncethe N*%- prosecutionhassubmittedproofthatpermitsa $+t&. findingbeyondareasonabledoubtonevery +J'/ elementofacharge,theaccusedmayobviously  beobligedtorespondwithevidencethat  `raises'orpermitsareasonabledoubtthathe \ isguiltyascharged.(See189.5. 2 [Citations.].)"X` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Gonzalez(1990)51Cal.3d1179,12141215, .    ` originalemphasis.)     Thus,189.5isbasicallyaruleofsufficiencyofevidence `  thatpermitsacasetobetriedasmurder,andtogotothejuryas  \  murder,wheretheprosecutionhasshownanunlawfulkillingand   nothingfurtherisshowntoindicateanyevidenceofmitigationor d  justification;thejurymayinfermalicefromthecircumstancesof `  thekilling.However,thejuryshouldnotbeinstructedconcerning   189.5,andshouldnotbeinstructedthatthekillingraisesa h presumptionofmalice,orthatthedefendantbearsanyburdenof d prooftonegatemalice.     `    (4)PremeditationandDeliberation. l   Therehasbeenlittlecontroversyaboutthebasicdefinitions h of"premeditation"and"deliberation."CALJIC8.20'sdefinitionof  premeditationwasupheldinPeoplev._Goldbach_(1972)27_Cal.App_.3d p  563,569holdingthatpremeditationwascorrectlydefinedassimply !l" meaning"consideredbeforehand." "$   Similarly,_Goldbach_upheldCALJIC8.20'sdefinitionof t$& deliberateas"formedorarrivedatordetermineduponasaresult  &p!( ofcarefulthoughtandweighingofconsiderationsforandagainst '#* theproposedcourseofaction."(27_Cal.App_.3datp.569.) x)$,   Morerecently,theSupremeCourtinPeoplev.Daniels(1991) $+t&. 52Cal.3d815,870heldthat"thestandardjuryinstruction(CALJIC  No.8.20)giventodefinepremeditationanddeliberationis \ sufficient." X   Twoissuesconcerningpremeditationanddeliberationhave   ariseninthepastfewyears.First,defendantsarguedthatitwas `  errorforatrialcourttorefuseaproposeddefenseinstructionon  \  premeditationanddeliberationbasedonthecriteriasetforthin   Peoplev.Anderson(1968)70Cal.2d15,2627.InAndersonthe d  SupremeCourtsetforththreecriteriabywhichanappellatecourt `  reviewedthesufficiencyoftheevidenceofpremeditationand   deliberation:(1)planningactivity;(2)motive;and(3)natureof h thekilling.However,suchaninstructionwasheldtobeproperly d refused:  8  8`    "[_T]he_ԀAndersonanalysis[citation]is l intendedasaframeworktoaidinappellate B reviewwhenadefendantclaimsthatafinding h ofpremeditationanddeliberationisnot > supportedbysubstantialevidence.Itwasnot  intendedtoformthebasisforajury  instruction;tothecontrary[citation],the p  standardjuryinstruction(CALJICNo.8.20) F ! giventodefinepremeditationanddeliberation !l" issufficient."!B#` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Daniels(1991)52Cal.3d815,869870.) "$   InPeoplev._Cordero_(1989)216_Cal.App_.3d275,thecourt t$& dealtwithanotheraspectofthedefinitionofpremeditationand  &p!( deliberation.ThestandardCALJIC8.20furtherdefinesthose '#* terms:"Toconstituteadeliberateandpremeditatedkilling,the x)$, slayermustweighandconsiderthequestionofkillingandthe $+t&. reasonsforandagainstsuchachoiceand,havinginmindthe  consequences,[he][she]decidestoanddoeskill."Thisphraseis \ consideredtobepartofthedefinitionof"deliberation,"andin X _Cordero_thejuryaskedforclarificationoftheterm   `consequences.'Thejurywantedtoknow:"[_W]hat_Ԁexactlydoes `  consequencesmean?I.e.,consequencesoftheactrelatingto  \  victim,resultingindeath,orconsequencesrelatingtodefendant   personally(i.e.,hewouldfacepunishmentbylawifhekilled d  victim."(216_Cal.App_.3datp.280.)Thedefensethenrequested `  thatthecourtgiveclarifyinginstructions,butthetrialcourt   refusedtogiveanyclarifyinginstruction.Thecourtofappeal h heldthatthisrefusalwasreversibleerror. d   Regardingthedefinitionof"consequences,"the_Cordero_court  held: l   8  8`    "[_T]he_Ԁ`consequences'tobeconsidered h fortheelementofdeliberationinmurdermay > includethosethataffecttheperpetrator.A  firstdegreemurderconvictionisproper  althoughthedefendantweighedandconsidered p  theconsequencesonlytohimselforherself. F ! Forexample,afeloninastolencarwhokills !l" apoliceofficerduringaroutinetrafficstop !B# doessotoavoidapprehension.[Citations.] "$ Conversely,convictionshavebeenupheldwhere #% thedefendantgavenothoughttopersonal t$& consequences.[Citations.]J% '` x` x 8  8`      Inmostinstances,however,the &F") `consequences'consideredcannotbe '#* categorizedsoeasily.Homicidesoccurin (#+ diversefactualsettingsandthethought x)$, processesinvokedbyassailantsarevaried;in N*%- manyinstancesanassailantwillcontemplate $+t&. consequencestoboththevictimandtohisor +J'/ herownfuture.Inothercases,the  deliberationwillsimplyinvolveconsequences  toathirdpartyorevenanideaorstrongly \ heldprinciple(e.g.,politicallyor 2 religiouslymotivatedassassinations).X` x` x 8  8`    [Par.].` x` x 8  8`    Theslayerneednothaveinmindallor   anyparticulartypeofconsequences;heorshe   mayreflectonseveralconsequences,butitis `  notarequirementthattherebereflection 6   aboutmorethanoneconsequence.Afindingof  \  deliberationmaybebasedonanyone  2  consequence." ` x` x    ` (216_Cal.App_.3datpp.280281.Originalemphasis.)     Thereiscurrentlysomedisputeconcerningwhetheratrial :  courtmustgivea_sua__sponte_instruction,whereevidencewarrants 6 it,ontheissueofprovocationasrelatingtopremeditation;i.e.,  aninstructionthatprovocationmaynegatepremeditationandthus > reduceanoffensetoseconddegreemurder.(SeeCALJIC8.73.)    8      ׀ :   AseriesofSupremeCourtcasesstate,atleastindicta,that  suchaninstructionmustbegiven_sua__sponte_.Thus,intherecent B caseofPeoplev.Johnson(1993)6Cal.4th1,4243,thecourt > stated:  8  8`    "Asdefendantobserves,a_sua_Ԁ_sponte_ F ! instructiononprovocationandseconddegree !l" murdermustbegiven`wheretheevidenceof !B# provocationwouldjustifyajurydetermination "$ thattheaccusedhadformedtheintenttokill #% asadirectresponsetotheprovocationand t$& hadactedimmediately'tocarryitout. J% ' (Peoplev._Wickersham_(1982)32Cal.3d307,  &p!( 329.)_Wickersham_notedthat`thefactthat &F") heatedwordswereexchangedoraphysical '#* struggletookplacebetweenthevictimandthe (#+ accusedbeforethefatalitymaybesufficient  toraiseareasonabledoubt'asto  premeditation.(Ibid.)"\` x` x   TheJohnsoncourtheldthatnosuchinstructionwasneededin X Johnson,becausetheevidencewasinsufficienttojustify   instructionsonthesubject.Thedefendanthadputonadefenseof `  alibi,andnootherevidenceshowedprovocationbythevictim.  \    However,tworecentCourtofAppealopinionshaveheldthat   thereisno_sua__sponte_dutytogivesuchaninstruction,andit d  onlyneedstobegivenonrequest.(Peoplev._Middleton_(1997)52 `  _Cal.App_.4th19;Peoplev.Lee(1994)28_Cal.App_.4th1724.)     Inbothcasesthecourt,inaextendeddiscussions,heldthat h thestatementsoftheSupremeCourtinJohnsonwerejustdicta,and d that,undertheSupremeCourt'sanalysisinPeoplev._Saille_(1991)  54Cal.3d1103,aninstructiononprovocationisjustan l instructionwhichnegatesanelementofanoffense,andisnotan h instructiononadefense.Accordingly,suchaninstructiononly  needstobegivenonrequest. p    Nevertheless,thereisanopenissuewhetherthetrialcourt !l" isrequired_sua__sponte_toinstructthejuryonprovocationwhere "$ evidencesupportssuchaninstruction. t$&    `  (b)MurderbySpecifiedMeans.  &p!(    `    Abasicpointinconnectionwithmurderby '#* specifiedmeansisthatmerelycommittingahomicidebythe x)$, specifiedmeansdoesnotelevatethekillingtofirstdegree $+t&. murder.Thekillingmustfirstbeamurder,i.e.,anunlawful  killingwithexpressorimpliedmalice;onlyifthatisthecase, \ doestheuseofthespecifiedmeanselevatethekillingtofirst X degree.     Thus,forexample,PenalCode189definesmurderinthe `  firstdegreeasincludingmurder"bymeansofadestructivedevice  \  orexplosive."InPeoplev.Morse(1992)2_Cal.App_.4th620,the   courtheldthatthetrialcourterredwhenitinstructedthejury d  thatifitfoundthatthedefendantcommittedseconddegreefelony `  murder,basedonthefelonyofpossessingadestructivedevice,the   murderwasthenautomaticallyelevatedtofirstdegreemurder h becauseoftheuseofthedestructivedevice.TheMorsecourt d explainedthatfirstthejurymustfindthatthekillingwasin  factmurder,i.e.,thatitwasdonewithmalice: l 8  8`      "Thisstatute[Pen.Code189] h createsthreecategoriesoffirstdegree > murder:(1)willful,deliberate,and  premeditatedmurder;(2)firstdegreefelony  murder(akilling`committedinthe p  perpetrationof[specifiedfelonies]');and F ! (3)murderperpetratedbyaspecifiedmeans !l" suchas`adestructivedevice.'!B#` x` x 8  8`      Unlikethesecondcategory(first #% degreefelonymurder)whichrequiresneither t$& maliceaforethoughtnordeliberationor J% ' premeditation,thethirdcategory(murderbya  &p!( specifiedmeans)requiresnotjustakilling &F") butamurder.`Itmustbeemphasized, '#* however,thatakillingbyoneofthemeans (#+ enumeratedinthestatuteisnotmurderofthe x)$, firstdegreeunlessitisfirstestablished N*%- thatitismurder.Ifthekillingwasnot $+t&. murder,itcannotbefirstdegreemurder....' +J'/ (Peoplev._Mattison_(1971)4Cal.3d177,182,  originalitalics.)` x` x 8  8`      Theeffectofthetrialcourt's 2 instructionswasarewritingofsection189. X Insteadof`Allmurderwhichisperpetratedby . meansofadestructivedevice"thesection   became`Allhomicidewhichisperpetratedby   meansofadestructivedevice.'Putanother `  way,thetrialcourt'sinstructionsaddeda 6   felonytothefirstdegreefelonymurderrule:  \  possessionofadestructivedevice. 2 ` x` x 8  8`      Althoughtherecklesspossessionof   abomb(12303.2)maybecomeseconddegree d  murder[i.e.,bythedoctrineofseconddegree :  felonymurder],itdoesnot,thereby, `  automaticallybecomefirstdegreemurder. 6 Peoplev._Mattison_,addressingacomparable   provisionofsection189,stated:`Togo  further,howeverandholdthat...theuseof h poisonisenoughnotonlytosupplythe > impliedmaliceofmurderbuttomakethat d murderofthefirstdegreewouldmaketheuse : ofpoisonservedoubledutyandresultin  criminalliabilityoutofallproportionto  the`turpitudeoftheoffender.'[Citation.] l Itwouldextendthefelonymurderdoctrine B `beyondanyrationalfunctionthatitis h designedtoserve.'[Citation.]">` x` x    ` (2_Cal.App_.4thatpp.654655.Originalemphasis.)     `    (1)DestructiveDevice.   9       F !   Seediscussionofmurderbyspecifiedmeansinimmediately !B#  precedingsubsection. h      #%    `    (2)LyinginWait.   10           TheSupremeCourthasconsistentlyupheldthestandardCALJIC \ instructiononlyinginwait(CALJIC8.25),whichdefineslyingin X waitas"waitingandwatchingforanopportunetimetoact,   togetherwithaconcealmentbyambushorothersecretdesignto `  taketheotherpersonbysurprise,eventhoughthevictimisaware  \  ofthemurderer'spresence.Thelyinginwaitneednotcontinue   foranyperiodoftimeprovideditsdurationissuchtoshowa d  stateofmindequivalenttopremeditationordeliberation."The `  instructionalsostatesthatthemurdermustbe"immediately   preceded"bythelyinginwait. h   ThisinstructionwasupheldinPeoplev._Ceja_(1993)4Cal.4th d 1134,1139:  8  8`      "[_D]efendant_Ԁarguesthatthis l instructionmisstatesoromitsthreeelements B oflyinginwait:`[1]a"substantialperiod h oflyinginwait";[2]thattheattackproceed > fromapositionofadvantage;and[3]thatthe  attackfollowimmediatelyafterthewatchful  waiting.'Althoughtheinstructiondoesnot p  verbatimtrackourlanguagein[apriorcase], F ! wehaverepeatedlyupheldtheinstruction,and !l" continuetodoso.[Citations.]...The !B# instructioncontainsthesubstanceofallthe "$ legalrequirements."#%` x` x   Thereisnorequirementthattheassailantintendtokill;an J% ' intenttoinflictinjurylikelytocausedeathissufficient:"The  trialcourtcorrectlyinstructedthatmurderbymeansoflyingin \ waitrequiresonlyawantonandrecklessintenttoinflictinjury X likelytocausedeath."(Peoplev.Webster(1991)54Cal.3d411,   448.) `    ThecourtinWebsterfurtherheldthat"Thelyinginwait  \  instructionsalsoexpressedthecorrecttemporalrelationship   betweenconcealmentandattack.Forpurposesoffirstdegree d  murder,CALJICNo.8.25...statesthatthekillingmustbe `  `immediatelypreceded'bytheperiodoflyinginwait."(54Cal.3d   atp.449.)Thus: h 8  8`      "Thepreciseperiodoftimeisalso d notcritical.Aslongasthemurderis : immediatelyprecededbylyinginwait,the  defendantneednotstrikeatthefirst  availableopportunity,butmaywaitto l maximizehispositionofadvantagebefore B takinghisvictimbysurprise."h` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Ceja_,supra,4Cal.4thatp.1145.)   11       >   Thecourtshavealsoconsistentlyheldthattheredoesnot  havetobeanactualconcealmentoftheassailant,justa  concealmentofhisorherpurpose: \ 8  8`      "Theconcealmentrequiredforlying X inwait`isthatwhichputsthedefendantina . positionofadvantage,fromwhichthe   _factfinder_Ԁcaninferthatlyinginwaitwas   partofthedefendant'splantotakethe `  victimbysurprise.[Citation.]Itis 6   sufficientthatadefendant'strueintentand  \  purposewereconcealedbyhisactionsor  2  conduct.Itisnotrequiredthathebe   literallyconcealedfromviewbeforehe   attacksthevictim.[Citations.]'"d ` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Webster,supra,atp.448.) :    InPeoplev.Edwards(1991)54Cal.3d787,824,thecourt 6 rejectedanargument,inconnectionwithspecialcircumstanceof  lyinginwait,thatthejuryneedstobeinstructedthattheymust > unanimouslyagreewhichactsconstitutedthelyinginwait.The : courtheldthatitissufficientifeachjurorisconvincedbeyond  areasonabledoubtthatthedefendantisguiltyoffirstdegree B murderasthatoffenseisdefinedbythestatute.Presumably,the > samewouldbetrueforfirstdegreemurderbylyinginwait.    InPeoplev.Ireland(1969)70Cal.2d522,thecourtheldthat F ! therecannotbeinstructionsforfelonymurderbasedonafelony, !B# suchasassaultwithadeadlyweapon,whichisanintegralpartof #% thehomicide.   12      ׀Asimilarargumentwasraisedinconnectionwith J% ' lyinginwait,inPeoplev._Maciel_(1987)199_Cal.App_.3d1042. &F") However,thecourtheldthatwhereadefendantwaslyinginwaitto (#+ commitassault,theIrelanddoctrinedidnotapplyandtherewasan  "adequatebasisforcriminalresponsibilityforfirstdegree \ murder."(199_Cal.App_.3datp.1049.) p  X    `    (3)Torture.   13       `    InPeoplev._Pensinger_(1991)52Cal.3d1210,1239,thecourt  \  reviewedthedefinitionoftorturemurderasdefinedbyPenalCode   189: d  8  8`    "Torturemurderis`murdercommittedwith `  awilful,deliberateandpremeditatedintent 6 toinflictextremeandprolongedpain.'   [Citation.]Thereisnorequirementthatthe  victimbeawareofthepain;whatis h consideredculpableenoughtopunishthecrime > asafirstdegreemurderisthecalculated d intenttocausepainfor`"thepurposeof : revenge,extortion,persuasionorforany  othersadisticpurpose."'[Citations.]  However,theremustbeacausalrelationship l betweenthetorturousactanddeath,asPenal B Codesection189definesthecrimeasmurder h `bymeansof'torture.">` x` x   Thus,"intenttotorture...mustbepresentinorderto  sustainaconvictionoffirstdegreemurderonatheoryoftorture F ! murder."(Peoplev.Proctor(1992)4Cal.4th499,531.)   14      ׀Further, !B# "Acourtshouldinstructajuryinatorturemurdercase,when  evidenceofintoxicationwarrantsit,thatintoxicationisrelevant \ totherequisitespecificintenttoinflictcruelsuffering." X (Peoplev._Pensinger_,supra,atp.1242.)     InPeoplev.Mills(1991)1_Cal.App_.4th898,918,thecourt `  statedthat"acausalrelationshipbetweenthetorturousactsand  \  themurderhasneverbeenheldtobeanexplicitelementoftorture   murderbyourSupremeCourt."Asnotedabove,inPeoplev. d  _Pensinger_,supra,theSupremeCourtheldthat"theremustbea `  causalrelationshipbetweenthetorturousactanddeath."(52   Cal.3datp.1239.)ThecourtinPeoplev.Proctor,supra, h reiteratedthattheremustbea"causalrelationship"betweenthe d tortureanddeath,andexplainedthat"Theactsoftorturemaynot  besegregatedintotheirconstituentelementsinordertodetermine l whetheranysingleactbyitselfcausedthedeath;rather,itis h thecontinuumofsadisticviolencethatconstitutesthetorture.  [Citation.]"(4Cal.4thatpp.530531.) p    Therehasbeensomedebateamongthecaseswhetherthis !l" requirementofacausalconnectionbetweenthetortureanddeathis "$ actuallyanelementoftheoffense,andthuswhetherthereisa_sua_ t$& _sponte_dutyonthepartofthetrialcourttoincludeinthe  &p!( instructionsontorturemurdersuchacausalelement.InPeoplev. '#* St.Joseph(1990)226_Cal.App_.3d289,thecourtheldthattheredid x)$, nothavetobesuchanexplicitinstruction;thecourtheldthat $+t&. sincetheinstructiondidstatethatthetorturehadtobeona  livingperson,thejurycouldnothavefoundthatthewoundswere \ inflictedafterdeath,andthatitwasclearthatthetotalityof X thewoundsdidcausedeathsoiftherewasanyerroritwasnot   prejudicial.InPeoplev.Mills,supra,thecourtheldthateven `  thoughtherewasnosuchexplicitinstructioninconnectionwith  \  torturemurder,thetrialjudgegavethegeneralproximatecause   instructionandthatwassufficient. d    Inresponsetothisdiscussion,CALJICrevisedthetorture `  murderinstruction(CALJIC8.24)toincludeaspecificinstruction   that"Theactsoractionstakenbytheperpetratortoinflict h extremeandprolongedpainwere[a][the]causeofthevictim's d death."Itappearsfrom_Pensinger_andtheothercasesnotedabove,  thatsomeformofaninstructiononcausationisrequiredsincea l causalrelationtodeathisanessentialaspectoftorturemurder; h however,wherethereisnofactualissueconcerningcausation,  presumablytheeliminationofsuchaninstructionwouldbefound p  harmless,atleastwhere,asinSt.JosephandMills,someother !l" instructioncanbesaidtohaveatleastpartiallycoveredthe "$ point. t$&   ThecourtinPeoplev._Raley_(1992)2Cal.4th870,901noted  &p!( thatthecaseshaveuniformlyupheldthephrase"sadisticpurpose" '#* inthedefinitionoftorturemurder,andheldthatevenwherethe x)$, juryaskedforclarificationofthetermtherewasnoerrorin $+t&. refusingtogivesuchclarification:  8  8`      "[_T]here_Ԁisnolegaldefinitionof \ theterm.Thejurors'commonunderstandingof 2 thetermwasallthatwasrequired.`Thereis X noneedtoinstructajuryonthemeaningof . termsincommonusage,whicharepresumedto   bewithintheunderstandingofpersonsof   ordinaryintelligence.'[Citation.]"(Original `  emphasis.)_6   15      _6  ` x` x   #XCXX,XC@5#,XCXXXC   `     h        ` 3.FirstDegreeFelonymurder .   16           PenalCode189definesfirstdegreefelonymurderasmurder r  committed"intheperpetrationof,orattempttoperpetrate" n  certainspecifiedfelonies:arson,rape,_carjacking_,robbery,  burglary,mayhem,kidnapping,trainwrecking,oroffensesunder v PenalCode206,286,288,288a,or289. "r   Thebasicrequirementsforfirstdegreefelonymurderwere  summarizedinPeoplev._Berryman_(1993)6Cal.4th1048,1085: z 8  8`    "Thementalstaterequiredissimplythe &v specificintenttocommittheunderlying  felony;neitherintenttokill,deliberation,  premeditation,normaliceaforethoughtis \ needed.[Citations.]Thereisnorequirement 2 ofastrict`causal'[citation]or`temporal' X [citation]relationshipbetweenthe`felony' . andthe`murder.'Allthatisdemandedis   thatthetwo`arepartsofonecontinuous   transaction.'[Citation.]Thereis,however, `  arequirementofproofbeyondareasonable 6   doubtoftheunderlyingfelony.[Citation.]." \ ` x` x   Thus,maliceisnotanelementoffelonymurder,andthusno   instructionshouldbegivenonit.(Peoplev.Dillon(1983)34 d  Cal.3d441,475.) `    Notethattherequirementofspecificintenttocommitthe   felonyappliesevenwherethefelonyitselfisageneralintent h crime:"Wehaverequiredaspartofthefelonymurderdoctrine d thatthejuryfindtheperpetratorhadthespecificintentto  commitoneoftheenumeratedfelonies,evenwherethatfelonyis l crimesuchasrape."(Peoplev.Hernandez(1988)47Cal.3d315, h 346.)    Regardingthe"causal"connection,althoughasnotedabove p  theredoesnothavetobeastrictcausalconnection,thereisa !l" requirementofsomeconnection:"Italsoisestablishedthatthe "$ killingneednotoccurinthemidstofthecommissionofthe t$& felony,solongasthatfelonyisnotmerelyincidentalto,oran  &p!(  afterthoughtto,thekilling."(Peoplev.Proctor(1992)4Cal.4th '#* 499,532.   17      )Furthermore, [_a]n_Ԁunlawfulkillingisdeemedtooccur   duringthecommissionorattemptedcommissionofanenumerated \ felonysolongasthefatalblowisstruckinitscourse,evenif X deathdoesnotthenresult.(Peoplev.Alvarez(1996)14Cal.4th   155,222;seealsofn.28) `  #XCXX,XC#,XCXXXC  Sinceburglaryisoneoftheenumeratedfelonies,notethat  \  undertheIrelanddoctrine<   18      ,aburglaryundertakenwiththeintent   tocommitanassaultortocommitmurdercannotformthebasisfor d  firstdegreefelonymurder,anditiserrortoinstructthejuryon `  felonymurderbasedonsuchburglaries.(Peoplev.Wilson(1969)   1Cal.3d431;Peoplev.Garrison(1989)47Cal.3d746.) h   Acourtmustinstruct_sua__sponte_thattheunderlyingfelony d (orattempt)mustbeprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt(Peoplev.  _Whitehorn_(1963)60Cal.2d256),andthatthespecificintentto l committhefelonymustbeprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt(People h v.Sears(1965)62Cal.2d737   19      ).CALJICNo.8.21containsan  instructiontothiseffect. p    Wherethedefendantischargedwiththeunderlyingfelonyas !l" wellaswithfelonymurder,thecourtmustinstruct_sua__sponte_on "$ lesserincludedoffensesoftheunderlyingfelonyifthereis  substantialevidencetofindsuchalesser.(Peoplev._Ramkeesoon_ \ (1985)39Cal.3d346;Peoplev.Kelly(1992)1Cal.4th495,529 X 530.)     Notethatthereisnorequirementthatthedefendantactually `  bechargedwiththeunderlyingfelony,onlythattheunderlying  \  felonymustbeproved.(See,e.g.,Peoplev._Whitehorn_(1963)60   Cal.2d256.)InPeoplev.Miller(1994)28_Cal.App_.4th522,the d  courtheldthattherequirementofinstructingon_lessers_Ԁtothe `  underlyingfelonydidnotapplywherethedefendantwasnot   actuallychargedwiththeunderlyingfelony. h   TheholdinginMillerseemsinconsistentwiththegeneral d discussionin_Ramkeesoon_,whichnotedthatthejuryshouldbeable  toconsiderthefullrangeofpossibleculpabilityshownbythe l evidence.Ifthedefendantcommittedalesserincludedoffenseof h theunderlyingfelonythatisthebasisforthefelonymurder  theory,thetrialcourtshouldinstructontheoriesofhomicide p  premisedonthecommissionofsuchafelony.Thesewouldinclude !l" seconddegreefelonymurderifthelesserincludedfelonywas "$ inherentlydangeroustohumanlife(seePeoplev.Hansen(1994)9 t$& Cal.4th300,308309)andinvoluntarymanslaughterifthelesser  &p!( includedoffenseisnotinherentlydangeroustohumanlife. '#* (Peoplev.Burroughs(1984)35Cal.3d824,833836;Peoplev. x)$, Morales(1975)49_Cal.App_.3d134,144145.)Notwithstandingthe $+t&. analysisoutlinedabove,theCaliforniaSupremecourthasrecently  reiteratedinPeoplev.Silva(2001)25Cal.4th345,371that \  [_a]lthough_Ԁatrialcourtonitsowninitiativemustinstructthe X juryonlesserincludedoffensesofchargedoffenses,thisduty   doesnotextendtounchargedoffensesrelevantonlyaspredicate l  offensesunderthefelony-murderdoctrine.(Peoplev.Miller(1994)  h  28_Cal.App_.4th522,526-527[33_Cal.Rptr_.2d663];seePeoplev.   _Memro_,supra,11Cal.4th786,888-890(conc.&dis._opn_.of p  _Kennard_,J.).)Becausedefendantwasnotchargedwithrobbery,the l  trialcourtdidnothavetoinstructthejuryontheftasalesser  includedoffenseofrobbery. t   OnMay15,2002,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreview  p inPeoplev._Cavitt_,S105058,(unpublished)toconsiderthe   questionleftopeninPeoplev._Pulido_(1997)15Cal.4th713: x  Doesfirstdegreefelonymurderliabilityattachtothe_nonkiller_ $t accompliceonlywhenthekillingiscommittedinthefurtherance   ofthecommondesignofthefelony,orinstead,whenthe |  accompliceisjointlyengagedinthefelony?Twoadditional (!x" questionsarealsotobereviewed: Whethertheenumeratedfelony "$$ continuesastoeveryaccomplicewhensome,butnotall,reacha $& placeoftemporarysafety;and Whetherthetrialcourt ,&|!( prejudiciallyerredinprecludingdefendantsfrompresenting '(#* evidenceestablishingacohortharboredindependentanimusfor )$, _pruposes_Ԁoffirst_detree_Ԁfelonymurder.(02C.D.O.S.4240)In 0+&. _Pulido_,supra,theCourtheldthatanaiderandabettorofa  robbery,whojoinedthatcriminalenterpriseonlyafterthe \ originalrobber,actingalone,killedapersonintheperpetration X oftherobbery,wasnotcriminallyliableformurderunderthe   felonymurderrule.(15Cal.4thatp.716)Thequestionsleftopen `  by_Pulido_includewhetherarobberisguiltyoffelonymurderif  \  hisconfederatekillssomeoneaftertherobberhasreachedaplace   oftemporarysafety. d  #XCXX,XC#,XCXXXC   ` 4.SecondDegreeMurder `    Theelementsofseconddegreemurderaregenerally:(1) ( unlawfulkillingofahumanbeingorfetus(akillingisunlawful  ifitisnotjustifiableorexcusable);(2)withmalice. 0   Inaddition,theunlawfulactofthedefendantmustbethe , proximatecauseofthedeath.     `     `  (a)PresumptionofMalice.  Z   Seediscussionofpresumptionofmalice,supra,atpage52.     `  (b)ExpressMalice. b !   Seediscussionofexpressmalice,supra,atpage46. "^#    `  (c)ImpliedMalice. # %   Therehasbeenagreatdealofcaselawconcerningjury f% ' instructionsdefiningimpliedmalice. 'b")   PenalCode188definesimpliedmaliceas"whenthe ($+ circumstancesattendingthekillingshowanabandonedandmalignant j*%- heart." ` ThecourtinPeoplev.Watson(1981)30Cal.3d290,300, ,f'/ findingthatthissomewhatancientformulationdidnotprovide  clarityforthemodernjuror,definedimpliedmaliceas"whena \ persondoesanact,thenaturalconsequencesofwhicharedangerous X tolife,whichactwasdeliberatelyperformedbyapersonwhoknows   thathisconductendangersthelifeofanotherandwhoactswith `  consciousdisregardforlife....Phrasedinadifferentway,  \  malicemaybeimpliedwhendefendantdoesanactwithahigh   probabilitythatitwillresultindeathanddoesitwithabase d  antisocialmotiveandwithawantondisregardforhumanlife. `  [Citation.]"In1984theLegislatureembracedthisdefinitionwhen   itamendedPenalCode192(concerninggrossnegligencefor h vehicularmanslaughter),statingthat"grossnegligence"doesnot d prohibitachargeofmurder"uponfactsexhibitingwantonnessand  aconsciousdisregardforlifetosupportafindingofimplied l malice,oruponfactsshowingmalice,consistentwiththeholding h oftheCaliforniaSupremeCourtinPeoplev.Watson30Cal.3d290."    CALJIC8.11(definingmalice)wasthenformulatedtoinclude p  theWatsondefinition.   20      ׀However,therewasinitiallylitigation !l" challengingCALJIC8.11becauseitstatedtheWatsondefinition "$ usingalternativelanguage(intentionalactinvolvingahighdegree t$& ofprobabilitythatitwillresultindeath,donewithwanton  &p!( disregardforlife;oranintentionalact,thenaturalconsequences '#* ofwhicharedangeroustolife,donewithconsciousdisregardfor  life).Theargumentwasthatthe"or"intheinstructionimplied \ thatthetwophraseswerenotequivalent,andthusthejurymight X decidethatthe"dangeroustolife"partoftheinstructionmeant   somethinglessthan"highprobabilityofdeath";also,that"wanton `  disregard"mightmeansomethingotherthan"consciousdisregard."  \  InPeoplev._Dellinger_(1989)49Cal.3d1212,thecourtheldthat   thisinstructiondidcorrectlydefineimpliedmalice(andthat d  "wanton"disregardforlifedidconvey"conscious"disregard). `    However,the_Dellinger_courtstatedthattheinstruction's   formulationwasconfusingandpotentiallymisleading.Itnoted h thatCALJIC8.11hadjustbeenrevisedagain,anditapprovedthe d latestversion.Thatversioneliminatesthealternative  formulation,andsimplystates:"Maliceisimpliedwhen[Par.]1. l Thekillingresultedfromanintentionalact,[Par.]2.The h naturalconsequencesoftheactaredangeroustohumanlife,and  [Par.]3.Theactwasdeliberatelyperformedwithknowledgeofthe p  dangerto,andwithconsciousdisregardfor,humanlife." !l"   Subsequently,defendantshavetriedtochallengethisnew "$ versionbypointingoutthatitomittedtheformulationinWatson t$& thattheacthavea"highprobabilityofdeath."Itwasargued  &p!( thatthe"highprobability"formulationwasamorecorrect '#* formulationofthedegreeofdangerousnessneeded.However,this x)$, contentionwasrejectedbythecourtinPeoplev._Nieto_Ԅ_Benitez_ $+t&. (1992)4Cal.4th91,111.Thecourtstatedspecificallythatthere  wasnoerrorinthecurrentformulationofCALJIC8.11,and"[we] \ declineamicuscuriae'sinvitationtorecommendmodificationofthe X instruction."(4Cal.4thatp.111.).     Thus,thecurrentcaselawnowseemssomewhatsettledinterms `  ofthedefinitionofimpliedmalice.Ithasbeensuggestedthat  \  defensecounselcontinuetopressforthe"highprobabilityof   death"definition,andJustices_Mosk_Ԁand_Kennard_Ԁwrotea d  concurrencein_Nieto_Ԅ_Benitez_statingthattheCALJICinstruction `  wasadequatebutthatitwouldbeclearerforthejurytobe   instructedintermsofthe"highprobabilityofdeath"language. h However,itappearsthatthisisnowbasicallyatrialissue;it d wouldbegoodfortrialcounseltopressthetrialcourttogive  the"highprobabilityofdeath"language,anditclearlywouldbe l acceptableforatrialcourttodefineimpliedmalicethatway;but h ifthetrialcourtdeclinestodosoandstickswiththestandard  CALJICdefinitiontheredoesnotappeartobeanappellateargument p  since_Dellinger_and_Nieto_Ԅ_Benitez_havespecificallyapprovedthe !l" standarddefinitionagainstsuchachallenge. "$   Anotherpossibleargumenthasbeensuggestedbytheeditorsof t$& _Forecite_,concerningtheeliminationofthephrase"base,  &p!( antisocialmotive"fromthedefinitionofimpliedmalice.The '#* argumentisthatthecasewhichoriginallyeliminatedthisphrase, x)$, Peoplev.Washington(1965)62Cal.2d777,780,didsothrough $+t&. erroneousinterpretationsofpriorcasesonwhichitrelied.  However,tryingtoadd"base,antisocialmotive"toCALJIC8.11now \ isprobablyanuphilltask,sincetheSupremeCourthastwice X specificallyapprovedthecurrentCALJIC8.11instruction   (_Dellinger_and_Nieto_Ԅ_Benitez_)asadequatelydefiningimplied `  malice.  \    AseriesofsuchargumentswasmadeandrejectedinPeoplev.   Curtis(1994)30_Cal.App_.4th1337.There,thedefensemadetwo d  challengestothestandardimpliedmaliceinstruction(CALJIC `  8.11):(1)thattheinstructionwasinvalidsinceitdidnot   includethelanguage"base,antisocialmotive;"and(2)thatthe h instructionwasinvalidbecauseitdidnotincludetheterm"high d probability"ofdeath.Thecourtheldthat:  8  8`    "Webelieve,however,that`base l antisocialmotive'inthiscontextmerely B meansthatthedefendantkilledwithoutany h legallyrecognizedjustificationorexcuse > (suchasselfdefense).Hence,itismore  liketheabsenceofanaffirmativedefense  thanatrueelementofthecrime....[Pars.]p ` x` x 8  8`      `Base,antisocialmotive'therefore F ! isanallusiveandellipticaltermofartfor !l" an`element'ofthecrimewhichisnotan !B# elementatallunlessthedefendantplacesit "$ inissue.The`consciousdisregard' #% definition[i.e.,CALJIC8.11]properlyomits t$& thisconfusingterm.Itleavesthetopicof J% ' justificationandexcusetobecoveredby  &p!( otherinstructions,whichmaybegivenas &F") neededinaparticularcase.Thisisjustone '#* morewayinwhich,astheSupremeCourthas (#+ held,the`consciousdisregard'definitionis x)$, preferabletothe`wantondisregard' N*%- definition."$+t&.` x` x    ` (30_Cal.App_.4thatpp.13521353.) +J'/   ThecourtinCurtisalsoheldthattherewasnoerrorin  failingtoincludetheterm"highprobabilityofdeath"inthe \ instruction:"The`consciousdisregard'definitionrequiresthat X the`naturalconsequences'ofthedefendant'sactbe`dangerousto   life.'Thisisequivalenttotherequirementofthe`wanton `  disregard'definitionthattheactinvolvea`highprobability'of  \  death.[Citations.]"(30_Cal.App_.4thatpp.13531354.)     Anadditionalareaoflitigationinvolvestherelationshipof d  voluntaryintoxicationtoimpliedmalice.InPeoplev._Whitfield_ `  (1994)7Cal.4th437,441,thecourtheldthat"evidenceof   voluntaryintoxicationisadmissibleunder[PenalCode]section22 h withregardtothequestionwhetherthedefendantharboredmalice d aforethought,whethersuchmaliceisexpressorimplied."  Specifically,"Thesoledisputedissuewaswhetherdefendantknew l thathisconductendangeredthelifeofanotherandactedwith h consciousdisregardforhumanlife....Themostimportantfactor  bearingupondefendant'sawarenessofthedangerousnessofhis p  conductandconsciousdisregardofthatdangerwashisdegreeof !l" intoxicationwhenheundertookhisdangerouscourseofconduct." "$ (7Cal.4thatp.452.) t$&   Atthetime_Whitfield_wasdecided,PenalCode22,subdivision  &p!( (b),providedthatevidenceofvoluntaryintoxicationwas '#* admissibleinamurdercaseonwhetherthedefendantharbored x)$, maliceaforethought.Theyearafter_Whitfield_,theLegislature $+t&. narrowedsubdivision(b)sothatintoxicationwouldbeadmissible  tonegateexpressmalice.Theeffectofthisamendmentwasto \ supersedetheholdingin_Whitfield_.(Peoplev.Martin(2000)78 X _Cal.App_.4th1107,11141115;Peoplev.Reyes(1997)52_Cal.App_.4th   975,984,fn.6.)Accordingly,voluntaryintoxicationnolonger `  cannegateimpliedmalice.  \    However,mentaldisease,disorderordefectstillcannegate   impliedmalice,andthisshouldapplytocasesinwhichuseof d  drugsresultsinamentaldisordersuchascocaineinduced `  psychosis.Mentaldisease,disorderanddefectisnotbasedon   section22,butratheronsection28,subdivision(a).This h subdivisioncontainslanguageidenticaltothepre1995versionof d section22thattheSupremeCourtconstruedin_Whitfield_andstates  thattheevidenceisadmissibleontheissuewhetherthedefendant l harboredmaliceaforethought.Adefendantwouldbeentitledtoan h instructioninformingthejurythatmentaldisease,defector  disordercannegatebothexpressandimpliedmalice.(SeeCALJIC p  3.32.)However,likeaninstructiononintoxication,an !l" instructiononmentaldisease,defectordisorderisapinpoint "$ instruction.Accordingly,thetrialcourthasnodutytogivethe t$& instruction_sua_Ԁ_sponte_,andisrequiredtogiveitonlyonthe  &p!( defendantsrequest.(Peoplev._Ervin_(2000)22Cal.4th48,89 '#* 91.) x)$,  $+t&.    ` % ; 5.SecondDegreeFelonymurder .%;i4    Whereakillingoccursinthecourseofafelony x whichisnotoneoftheenumeratedfeloniesinPenalCode189 $t (firstdegreefelonymurder),butwhichisafelonyinherently   dangeroustolife,thecaselawhasestablishedthatsuchakilling |  isseconddegreemurder: ( x  8  8`    "Thefelonymurderruleimputesthe $  requisitemaliceforamurderconvictionto   thosewhocommitahomicideduringthe   perpetrationofafelonyinherentlydangerous V  tohumanlife....`Thefelonymurderdoctrine, ,|  whoseostensiblepurposeistodeterthose R engagedinfeloniesfromkillingnegligently ( oraccidentally,operatestopositthe  existenceofthatcrucialmentalstateand  therebytorenderirrelevantevidenceof Z actualmaliceorthelackthereofwhenthe 0 killerisengagedinafelonywhoseinherent V dangertohumanliferenderslogicalan , imputationofmaliceonthepartofallwho  commitit.[Citations.]` x` x 8  8`    Thefelonymurderruleappliestoboth ^ firstandseconddegreemurder....InPeople 4 v.Ford(1964)60Cal.2d772,795,thecourt  Z restrictedthefeloniesthatcouldsupporta 0 convictionofseconddegreemurder,basedupon  afelonymurdertheory,tothosefeloniesthat   are`inherentlydangeroustohumanlife.'...b !` x` x 8  8`    Indeterminingwhetherafelonyis 8!" inherentlydangerous,thecourtlookstothe "^# elementsofthefelonyintheabstract,`not "4$ the"particular"factsofthecase,'i.e., # % nottothedefendant'sspecificconduct. $& [Citation.]f% '` x` x 8  8`    Pastdecisionsofthiscourthave <&!( explainedfurthertheconceptofaninherently 'b") dangerousfelony....[_A]n_Ԁinherentlydangerous '8#* felonyisonewhich`byitsverynature,... ($+ cannotbecommittedwithoutcreatinga )$, substantialriskthatsomeonewillbe j*%- killed....'[Citation.]...[_W]e_Ԁspecified @+&. that`forpurposesoftheseconddegree ,f'/ felonymurderdoctrine,an"inherently  dangerousfelony"isanoffensecarrying"a  highprobability"thatdeathwillresult.' \ [Citation.]"2` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Hansen(1994)9Cal.4th300, X    ` 308309.Originalemphasis.) .   Amongthefelonieswhichhavebeenfoundtobeinherently   dangeroustohumanlifearedischargingafirearmataninhabited 6   dwelling(Peoplev.Hansen(1994)9Cal.4th300,309311);  2  furnishingapoisonoussubstance(Peoplev._Mattison_(1971)4   Cal.3d177,184186);burningamotorvehicle,inviewofthe :  dangerofexplosionofgasoline(Peoplev._Nichols_(1970)3Cal.3d 6 150,162163);manufacturingmethamphetamine,inviewofthedanger  ofexplosionofvolatilechemicalsusedinthemanufacturing > process(Peoplev.James(1998)62_Cal.App_.4th244,257271); : simplekidnapping(Peoplev._Greenberger_(1997)58_Cal.App_.4th298,  377;Peoplev._Pearch_(1991)229_Cal.App_.3d1282,12961299);_   21      _ B kidnappingforrobbery(Peoplev.Coleman(1992)5_Cal.App_.4th646, > 649651);kidnappingforransom,extortionorreward(Peoplev.  _Ordonez_(1991)226_Cal.App_.3d1207,12241229);evadinganofficer F ! inviolationofVehicleCode2800.2(Peoplev._Sewell_(2000)80 !B# _Cal.App_.4th690,693697;Peoplev.Johnson(1993)15_Cal.App_.4th #% 169,173174);recklessandmaliciouspossessionofadestructive J% ' deviceorexplosive(Peoplev.Morse(1992)2_Cal.App_.4th620,644 &F") 646);felonychildabusebymalnutritionanddehydration(Peoplev.  _Shockley_(1978)79_Cal.App_.3d669,674677);anddrivingunderthe \ influenceofanarcoticdrug.(Peoplev._Calzada_(1970)13 X _Cal.App_.3d603,605606.)     Felonieswhichhavebeenfoundnottobeinherentlydangerous `  tohumanlifeincludepracticingmedicinewithoutalicense(People  \  v.Burroughs(1984)35Cal.3d824,828833);falseimprisonment   (Peoplev.Henderson(1977)19Cal.3d86,9396);escape(Peoplev. d  Lopez(1971)6Cal.3d45,5152);possessionofafirearmbya `  felon(Peoplev._Satchell_(1971)6Cal.3d28,3541);possessionof   asawedoffshotgun(id.atpp.4143);grandtheft(Peoplev. h Phillips(1966)64Cal.2d574,580583);conspiracytopossess d _methedrine_Ԁ(Peoplev.Williams(1965)63Cal.2d452,458);evasion  ofanofficerinviolationofVehicleCode2800.3(Peoplev. l Sanchez(2001)86_Cal.App_.4th970#XCXX,XC#,XCXXXC;#XCXX,XCP#,XCXXXC);extortion(Peoplev.Smith h (1998)62_Cal.App_.4th1233,12361238);furnishingPCP(Peoplev.  Taylor(1992)6_Cal.App_.4th1084,10951101);andchild p  endangermentorabuse(Peoplev.Lee(1991)234_Cal.App_.3d1214, !l" 12221229;Peoplev._Caffero_(1989)207_Cal.App_.3d678,682684).#XCXX,XCbP#,XCXXXC "$   Aswithfirstdegreefelonymurder,seconddegreefelony t$& murderrequiresproofofthespecificintenttocommitthe  &p!( underlyingfelony(seeCALJIC8.32),eveniftheunderlyingfelony '#* isageneralintentcrime.(Peoplev.Jones(2000)82_Cal.App_.4th x)$, 663,667668.)Thisrulesometimesworkstotheadvantageofthe $+t&. defendantonappeal.Asnoted#XCXX,XCR#inthepreviousparagraph,a  violationofVehicleCode2800.3(felonyevasionofanofficer \ proximatelycausingdeathorseriousbodilyinjury)cannotbea X basisforseconddegreefelonymurderbecausethefelonyisnot   inherentlydangeroustohumanlife.Inaddition,section2800.3 `  cannotbeabasisforseconddegreefelonymurderbecausethe  \  specificintenttocommitthatoffensewouldbethespecificintent   tokillortocauseseriousbodilyinjurywhichareidenticalto d  expressandimpliedmaliceandthefelonymurderruledoesnot `  applywhereproofofmaliceisrequired.(Peoplev.Jones(2000)   82_Cal.App_.4th663,669.),XCXXXCԀ h   Amajorconsiderationconcerningseconddegreefelonymurder d istheIrelandmergerdoctrine.InPeoplev.Ireland(1969)70  Cal.2d522thecourtheldthatwherethefelonywasassaultwitha l deadlyweapon,itwasimpropertobaseaconvictiononfelony h murdersincethatwould"bootstrap"anykillingcommittedwitha  deadlyweaponintomurder,withoutthejurymakinganindependent p  determinationconcerningactualmalice.SubsequenttoIrelanda !l" numberofothertypesoffelonieswerefoundtobemergedintothe "$ killingitself,andthusnotsubjecttothefelonymurderdoctrine. t$& (E.g.,Peoplev.Smith(1984)35Cal.3d798[felonychild  &p!( abuse/assault];Peoplev.Wilson(1969)1Cal.3d431[burglarywith '#* intenttocommitassault].) x)$,   InPeoplev.Hansen,supra,thecourtundertookamajor $+t&. examinationoftheIrelanddoctrine.TheHansencourtrejected  languageinIrelandwhichhadindicatedthatanyoffensewhichis \ "anintegralpartof"thehomicideand"includedinfactwithin" X thehomicidewassubjecttothemergerdoctrine.Instead,Hansen   heldthat"withrespecttocertaininherentlydangerousfelonies, `  theiruseasthepredicatefelonysupportingapplicationofthe  \  felonymurderrulewillnotelevateallfeloniousassaultsto   murderorotherwisesubvertthelegislativeintent."(9Cal.4that d  p.315.)Thus,HansenheldthatPanelCode246,(shootinga `  firearmataninhabiteddwelling)canbeapredicateforfelony   murder: h 8  8`    "Inthepresentcase,...applicationof d theseconddegreefelonymurderrulewouldnot : resultinthesubversionoflegislative  intent.Mosthomicidesdonotresultfrom  violationsofsection246,andthus,unlike l thesituationinIreland,supra,70Cal.2d B 522,applicationofthefelonymurderdoctrine h inthepresentcontextwillnothavethe > effectof`_preclud[ing_]thejuryfrom  consideringtheissueofmaliceaforethought  ...[in]thegreatmajorityofallhomicides. p  (Id.atp.539.)Similarly,applicationof F ! thefelonymurderdoctrineinthecasebefore !l" uswouldnotfrustratetheLegislature's !B# deliberatecalibrationofpunishmentfor "$ assaultiveconductresultingindeath,based #% uponthepresenceorabsenceofmalice t$& aforethought....[_T]his_Ԁisnotasituationin J% ' whichtheLegislaturehasdemandedashowing  &p!( ofactualmalice...inordertosupporta &F") seconddegreemurderconviction.Indeed,... '#* applicationofthefelonymurderrule,whena (#+ violationofsection246resultsinthedeath x)$, ofaperson,clearlyisconsistentwiththe N*%- traditionallyrecognizedpurposeofthesecond $+t&. degreefelonymurderdoctrinenamelythe +J'/ deterrenceofnegligentoraccidentalkillings  thatoccurinthecourseofthecommissionof  dangerousfelonies."\` x` x    ` (9Cal.4thatp.315.)_   22      _ 2   Nevertheless,afterHansen,themergerdoctrineofIrelandhas . beenappliedtotwoadditionalassaultrelatedfelonies.Oneis   conspiracytocommitanassaultwithadeadlyweapon.(Peoplev. 6   Baker(1999)74_Cal.App_.4th243,248251.)Theotherisevasionof  2  anofficerproximatelycausingdeathorseriousbodilyinjury,in   violationofVehicleCode2800.3,since [a]persondrivingwith :  thespecificintenttoviolatesection2800.3isusingthevehicle 6 tocommitanassaultwithadeadlyweapon,anoffensethat  precludesapplicationofthefelonymurderdoctrine.#XCXX,XCX#(Peoplev. > Jones(2000)82_Cal.App_.4th663,669.),XCXXXCԀ#XCXX,XCm#,XCXXXCԀ :    ` 6.AttemptedHomicide . B   PenalCode664statesthatanattemptedoffenseis  Z punishableforonehalfthetermofimprisonmentprescribedupona  convictionoftheoffenseattempted.Forcrimessuchassecond b ! degreemurderandotheroffensescarryingalifeterm,the "^# punishmentisimprisonmentforatermoffive,sevenornineyears. # % However,"ifthecrimeattemptediswillful,deliberateand f% ' premeditatedmurder,asdefinedinSection189,thepersonguilty 'b") ofthatattemptshallbepunishablebyimprisonmentinthestate  prisonforlifewiththepossibilityofparole." \   In1994theLegislatureaddedasubdivisiontoPenalCode X 664providingthatattemptedmurderonapeaceofficeris   punishablebylifewiththepossibilityofparole.Thesubdivision `  alsostatedthatitapplies"ifitisprovedthatadirectbut  \  ineffectualactwascommittedbyonepersontowardkillinganother   humanbeingandthepersoncommittingtheactharboredexpress d  maliceaforethought,namely,aspecificintenttounlawfullykill `  anotherhumanbeing."TheLegislaturedeclaredthat"this   paragraphisdeclaratoryofexistinglaw."(PenalCode664,subd. h (e).) d   Therecentcaselawconcerningattemptedmurderhasfocusedon  twogeneralissues.First,thequestionwasraisedwhether l attemptedmurderrequiresexpressmalice.Peoplev._Guerra_(1985) h 40Cal.3d377,386,heldthatattemptedmurder"requiresaspecific  intenttokill,amentalstatecoincidentwithexpressmalicebut p  notnecessarilywithimpliedmaliceorfelonymurder."It !l" thereforeisnotpermissibletoinstructthejuryonimpliedmalice "$ wheretheoffenseisattemptedmurder. t$&   Subsequently,inPeoplev.Lee(1987)43Cal.3d666,670,the  &p!( courtdealtwiththeissueagain,specificallyholdingthatgiving '#* aninstructiononimpliedmaliceiserror: x)$, 8  8`    "Itisnowwellestablishedthata $+t&. specificintenttokillisarequisiteelement +J'/ ofattemptedmurder,andthatmereimplied  maliceisaninsufficientbasisonwhichto  sustainsuchacharge.Accordingly,implied \ maliceinstructionsshouldneverbegivenin 2 relationtoanattemptedmurdercharge. X [Citations.]".` x` x   Asnoted,_Guerra_alsoheldthatafelonymurdertheorywould   alsobeinconsistentwiththerequirementofexpressmalice,and 6   thus,asLeeindicated,givingsuchaninstructionwouldbeerror.  2    Thesecondmajorissuethathasbeenlitigatedrecentlyisthe   questionofwhetherattemptedmurderisdividedintodegrees.In :  thatregard,thecaseshaveconsistentlyheldthattheoffenseis 6 notdividedintodegrees.(Peoplev.Bright(1996)12Cal.4th652,  665669;Peoplev.Douglas(1990)220_Cal.App_.3d544,548550; > Peoplev.Jones(1991)234_Cal.App_.3d1303,13101313.)Thus, : wherethedefendantischargedwithattemptedpremeditatedmurder,  thereisnoentitlementtoaninstructionona"lesser"offenseof B simpleattemptedmurder.(Peoplev.Douglas,supra,220_Cal.App_.3d > #XCXX,XCVm#,XCXXXCatpp.549550;Peoplev.Jones,supra,234_Cal.App_.3datp.1311.)    _CALJIC_'sstandardinstructions(CALJICNos.8.66and8.67) F ! instructthejuryontherequirementsofspecificintenttokill !B# forattemptedmurder,andonthefurtherrequirementthatthejury #% mustthendeterminewhethertheattemptedmurderwaspremeditated. J% ' TheseinstructionswereupheldinPeoplev.Douglas,supra: &F") 8  8`    "Thetrialcourtinstructedthejurywith (#+ aslightlymodifiedformofCALJICNo.8.66, x)$, thegeneralattemptedmurderinstruction.It N*%- requiresaspecificintenttokill(malice) $+t&. andadirectacttowardsthatend;itdoesnot +J'/ includetheelementsofpremeditationor  deliberationwhichwouldjustifyimpositionof  thegreaterpenaltyundersection664.The \ courtthengaveCALJICNo.8.67,which 2 instructedthejurythatiftheydetermined X thatDouglashadcommittedattemptedmurder, . theythenmustmakeaspecificfindingon   whethertheoffensewaswillful,deliberate   andpremeditated.CALJICNo.8.67 `  sufficientlydistinguishesthedifferent 6   elementsnecessaryforimpositionofeitherof  \  thepunishmentsundersection664,subdivision  2  1,regardlessofwhetherthosepunishments   establishdifferentdegreesofattempted   murder."d ` x` x    ` (220_Cal.App_.3datp.550.) :    Notethatthereissuchanoffenseasattemptedvoluntary 6 manslaughter,basedonheatofpassionand/orimperfectself  defense: > 8  8`      "Anattempttocommitacrime : requiresanintentiontocommitthecrimeand  anovertacttowardsitscompletion.  [Citation.]Whereapersonintendstokill l anotherpersonandmakesanunsuccessful B attempttodoso,hisintentionmaybe h accompaniedbyanyoftheaggravatingor > mitigatingcircumstanceswhichcanaccompany  thecompletedcrimes.Inotherwords,the  intenttokillmayhavebeenformedafter p  premeditationordeliberation,itmayhave F ! beenformeduponasuddenexplosionof !l" violence,oritmayhavebeenbroughtaboutby !B# aheatofpassionoranunreasonablebutgood "$ faithbeliefinthenecessityofselfdefense. #% Ifthelawactsoutofforbearanceforthe t$& weaknessofhumannatureandmitigatesan J% ' intentionalkillingwheremitigating  &p!( circumstancesappear,thenwecandiscernno &F") plausiblereasonwhythelawshouldnotalso '#* mitigateanintentionalattempttokillunder (#+ similarcircumstances."x)$,` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Van_Ronk_(1985)171_Cal.App_.3d818,824.) $+t&.   However,itisunclearafterPeoplev._Saille_(1991)54Cal.3d  1103_   23      _,whethertherecanbeattemptedvoluntarymanslaughterbased \ onvoluntaryintoxicationorothermentalstate(otherthanheatof X passionorimperfectselfdefense).Itdoesnotappearthatsuch   anoffenseispossible.Voluntaryintoxicationwouldberelevant `  toshowthattherewasinfactnointenttokillformed.(People  \  v.Walker(1993)14_Cal.App_.4th1615.)However,ifnointentto   killwaspresent,itwouldseemthatthecrimecouldnolongerbe d  anattemptedhomicide,sinceanattemptedhomicidewouldseemto `  requireanintenttokill.(SeePeoplev.Van_Ronk_,supra.)If   therewerenointenttokill,theoffensewouldappeartobesome h formofattemptedbatteryand/orassault._<   24      _ԀTheVon_Ronk_court, d however,wasnotentirelyclearonthispoint.InbothWalkerand  Peoplev.Morales(1992)5_Cal.App_.4th917,thecourtsheldthat l therewasno_sua__sponte_obligationonthepartofthejudgeto h instructonalesseroffenseofattemptedvoluntarymanslaughter  basedonvoluntaryintoxicationnegatingmalice.Neitheropinion p  discussedthemorefundamentalquestionofwhethersuchanoffense !l" actuallyexists. "$   Notethatsinceinvoluntarymanslaughterisanunintentional t$& killing,ithasbeenheldthatthereisnosuchcrimeasattempted  involuntarymanslaughter."An`attempt'tocommitinvoluntary \ manslaughterwouldrequirethatthedefendantintendtoperpetrate X anunintentionalkillingalogicalimpossibility."(Peoplev.   _Broussard_(1977)76_Cal.App_.3d193,197.Seealso,Peoplev._Brito_ `  (1991)232_Cal.App_.3d316.)     p     \     ` 7.VoluntaryManslaughter .     Manslaughteristheunlawfulkillingofahumanbeing,but   withoutmalice.(Pen.Code192.)Voluntarymanslaughterused ,|  tobedescribedasanintentionalunlawfulkillingwithoutmalice. ( (Peoplev._Coad_(1986)181_Cal.App_.3d1094,1106;Peoplev.  _Wickersham_(1982)32Cal.3d307,325.)However,theCalifornia 0 SupremeCourtrecentlyheldthatintenttokillisnotrequiredand , thatvoluntarymanslaughterincludesbothintentionaland  unintentionalkillings.(Peoplev._Blakeley_(2000)23Cal.4th82, 4 8791;Peoplev._Lasko_(2000)23Cal.4th101,107111.) 0   Threecircumstancesservetoreduceanintentionalkillingto   voluntarymanslaughter: 8!"   (1)Killingupona"suddenquarrel."(Pen.Code192(a).) "4$   (2)Killingupon"heatofpassion."(Pen.Code192(a).) $&   (3)Killinguponanhonestbutunreasonablebeliefintheneed <&!( todefendagainstimminentperiloflifeorgreatbodilyinjury. '8#* (Peoplev.Flannel(1979)25Cal.3d668,680683.) )$,   Thereusedtobeafourthtypeofvoluntarymanslaughter_Ԅ_ @+&. wherethedefendant'sdiminishedcapacitynegatedmalice.(People  v.Castillo(1969)70Cal.2d264.)However,theadditionofPenal \ Code28and29andtheredefinitionofPenalCode188in1981 X eliminatedthistypeofnonstatutoryvoluntarymanslaughter.   (Peoplev._Saille_(1991)54Cal.3d1103.)_Saille_heldthat `  "pursuanttothelanguageofsection188,whenanintentional  \  killingisshown,maliceaforethoughtisestablished.Section192,   however,negatesmalicewhentheintentionalkillingresultsfrom d  asuddenquarrelorheatofpassioninducedbyadequate `  provocation."(54Cal.3datp.1114.)Thereisnoothernegation   ofmalicebasedonthedefendant'smentalstate(otherthan h unreasonableselfdefense).Thus,althoughadefendantcan d introduceevidenceofintoxicationormentaldiseaseordefectto  showthatheorshedidnotinfactformanintenttokill,oncean l intenttokillisfoundthecrimeismurderunlessitmeetsthe h specificstatutoryreductiontomanslaughterbasedonquarrelor  heatofpassion. p    Inarecentcase,theCourtofAppealheldthatimperfect !l" duressisnotabasisforvoluntarymanslaughter.(Peoplev.Son "$ (2000)79_Cal.App_.4th224,231240.)_4   25      _Ԁ t$&   Althoughunreasonableselfdefenseandsuddenquarrel/heatof  passionareshorthanddescriptionsofvoluntarymanslaughter,they \ areviewedasmitigatingcircumstancesthatreduceanunlawful X killingfrommurdertomanslaughterbynegatingtheelementof   maliceaforethoughtthatotherwiseinheresinanunlawfulhomicide. `  (Peoplev.Rios(2000)23Cal.4th450,461.)Theyarenot,  \  however,elementsofvoluntarymanslaughtereitherwheremurderand   manslaughterareunderjointconsiderationorwherevoluntary d  manslaughteraloneischarged.Accordingly,insuchsituations,in `  ordertohavethejuryfindthedefendantguiltyofvoluntary   manslaughter,thePeoplearenotrequiredtoprovethatmaliceis h absentbyprovingthatthedefendantwasprovokedorunreasonably d soughttodefendhimself.(Id.atpp.462463.)    Theinterplayof_Lasko_,_Blakeley_,andRioshasledtomuch l confusionandsomeoddrevisionsofCALJICinstructions.For h example,because_Lasko_Ԁisnotconsideredabreakwiththethen  existinglawbutmerelyacorrectionofit,itsholding,that p  intenttokillisnotanelementofvoluntarymanslaughter,canbe !l" constitutionallyappliedtoalldefendants,whethertheircrimes "$ occurredbeforeorafter_Lasko_Ԁwasdecided.However,_Blakeley_s t$& holding,thatimpliedmalicemurder,likeexpressmalicemurder,  &p!( canonlybereducedtovoluntarymanslaughterbyimperfectself  defense(orheatofpassion)didchangethelaw,tothedetriment \ ofdefendantswhoreliedoncasessayingthatimperfectself X defensereducedunintentionalkillings(i.e.,impliedmalice   murders)toinvoluntarymanslaughter.Thus,as_Blakeley_itself `  recognized,itsholdingcouldnotconstitutionallybeappliedto  h  defendantswhocommittedtheircrimesbefore_Blakeley_wasdecided.   Thisleadstotheconfusingsituationswherethetrialcourtmust p  instructthejuryinthesamecaseinoftermsof_Lasko_Ԁ(nointent l  tokill)forthesomepurposesbutintermsofpre_Blakeley_Ԁlawfor  others.See,forexample,Peoplev.Johnson(5/16/2002) t ____Cal.App_.4th___;B152162(CA2,Div.7)Andquerywhetherthe  p 2001RevisionofCALJIC8.40correctlystatesthelawasexplicated  by_Lasko_ԀandRios.Foranexcellentanalysisofthechangesin x homicidelawwroughtby_Lasko_,_Blakely_,andRiosseethearticleby $t Madeline_McDowell_ԀinconjunctionwiththeCentralCalifornia   AppellateProgram,reprintedbypermissionwiththesematerials. |     ` (a)SuddenQuarrel/HeatofPassion. (!x"   Wheretheevidenceraisesaquestionconcerningtheissueof "$$ suddenquarrelorheatofpassion,theburdenisontheprosecution $& toprovetheabsenceofsuch: ,&|!( 8  8`    "Theprosecutionmust`provebeyonda '(#* reasonabledoubttheabsenceoftheheatof (#+ passiononsuddenprovocationwhentheissue )$, isproperlypresentedinahomicidecase.' Z*%- (_Mullaney_v.Wilbur(1975)421U.S.684,704."0+&.` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Bloyd_(1987)43Cal.3d333,349.) ,V'/ However,suchproofmay"beinferredfromthecircumstancesofthe  homicide."(Ibid.) \   Sincetheburdenisontheprosecution,thedefendantneed X onlyshowsomecredibleevidenceraisingareasonabledoubtabout   quarrel/passioninordertobeentitledtoinstructionson `  manslaughter;i.e.,evidence"fromwhichreasonablepersonscould  \  haveconcludedtherewassufficientprovocationtoreducemurderto   manslaughter."(Peoplev.Wharton(1991)53Cal.3d522,571; d  Peoplev.Brooks(1986)185_Cal.App_.3d687.) `    Thecaseshaveenumeratedsomekeypointsconcerningsudden   quarrelandheatofpassion: h    ` Thestandardforjudgingquarrel/heatofpassionis d notsolelythesubjectivebeliefofthedefendant,butrather  whetherthedefendant'sactionscomportedwiththoseofan l ordinarilyreasonablepersonfacedwiththesamesituation: h 8  8`    "[_T]he_Ԁfundamentaloftheinquiryis  whetherornotthedefendant'sreasonwas,at  thetimeofhisact,sodisturbedorobscured p  bysomepassionnotnecessarilyfearand F ! never,ofcourse,thepassionforrevengeto !l" suchanextentaswouldrenderordinarymenof !B# averagedispositionliabletoactrashlyor "$ withoutduedeliberationandreflection,and #% fromthispassionratherthanfromjudgment."t$&` x` x    ` (Peoplev.Logan(1917)175Cal.45,49.) J% '   Itshouldbenotedthatrecentlythecourthasstatedthat &F") "determinationofthesufficiencyofprovocationismadebyan (#+ objectivestandard;defendant'ssubjectiveresponseisimmaterial." N*%- (Peoplev.Rich(1988)45Cal.3d1036,1112.Originalemphasis.) +J'/ However,notethatalthoughthisistrueintermsofthe  sufficiencyoftheprovocation,thereisstillasubjective \ elementthedefendantmust,infact,havebeenactingunderheat X ofpassion.Thus,asdiscussedbelow,iftheevidenceshowsthat   despiteadequateprovocationthedefendant'spassionshaveinfact `  cooledandhedidnotactundersuchpassion,thekillingis  \  murder.(Peoplev._Golsh_(1923)63Cal.App.609.)Thus,"The   subjectiveelementrequiresthattheactorbeundertheactual d  influenceofastrongpassionatthetimeofthehomicide." `  (Peoplev._Wickersham_(1982)32Cal.3d307,327.)      ` Thekey"triggering"eventforquarrel/passionisthat h theremustbesomeprovocationwhichwouldexcitesuchpassionin d areasonableperson.Further,itisgenerallyheldthatthe  provocationmustcomefromthevictim.(SeePeoplev._Spurlin_ l (1984)156_Cal.App_.3d119.) h    ` Theadequacyoftheprovocationisaquestionforthe  jury(unlessnoreasonablejurorcouldsofind).Thecaseshold p  that"thereisnospecifictypeofprovocationrequiredbysection !l" 192andthatverbalprovocationmaybesufficient."(Peoplev. "$ Berry(1976)18Cal.3d509,515.)However,thecasesareclear t$& thatavictim'sresistancetoadefendant'scriminalactcannotbe  &p!( sufficientprovocationtoreducemurdertomanslaughter.(People '#* v.Rich,supra.) x)$,    ` Thepassion"neednotmean`rage'or`anger'butmay $+t&. beany`violent,intense,highwroughtorenthusiasticemotion.'"  (Peoplev.Berry,supra,atp.515.)However,revengecannotbea \ valid"passion."(Peoplev.Logan,supra,atp.49.) X    ` SincePenalCode192definesvoluntarymanslaughter   as"upon"asuddenquarrelorheatofpassion,thecaseshaveheld `  thatif,despiteadequateprovocation,asufficienttimeperiodhas  \  elapsedforareasonablepersontocooloff,malicehasnotbeen   negatedandthekillingismurder.(SeePeoplev._Golsh_(1923)63 d  Cal.App.609.) `    Numerouscasesdiscusswhethercertaintypesofprovocation   and/orpassionweresufficientforvoluntarymanslaughter,anda h canvassingofsuchcasesisbeyondthescopeofthesematerials. d Regardinginstructionsingeneral,thestandardCALJICinstructions  onvoluntarymanslaughter(CALJICNos.8.408.44)embodythe l generalprinciplesnotedabove.Theseinstructionswereupheldin h Peoplev._Rupe_(1988)206_Cal.App_.3d1537.  However,inPeoplev.  Wharton(1991)53Cal.3d522,571thecourtheldthat"thecourt p  erredinrefusingtoinstructthejury,atdefendant'srequest, !l" thatlegallyadequateprovocationcouldoccuroveraconsiderable "$ periodoftime."Asaresult,CALJICreviseditsinstructionNo. t$& 8.42(definingsuddenquarrelandheatofpassion)toaddthat  &p!( adequateprovocationmayoccur"inashort,oroveraconsiderable, '#* periodoftime."Notethatthislatterphraseisbracketedin x)$, CALJICNo.8.42,andtheWhartoncasedescribedthisasa $+t&. "pinpoint"instructionwhichmustberequested.Thus,ifacourt  omitsthisphrase_sua__sponte_,theremaybenoerrorunlessthe \ defendantactivelyrequestedit.ThediscussioninWhartonwould X applytosuchsituationsasabatteredwoman'sdefense.     Caseshavefoundaminorerror,inconnectionwiththegiving `  ofCALJICNo.8.50.CALJICNo.8.50discussesthedifference  \  betweenmurderandmanslaughter,notingthatkillingsdoneinthe   heatofpassionorinanhonestbutunreasonablebeliefinself d  defensearemanslaughter.Caseshavefounderrorwherethejudge `  failstousetheword"or"betweenthephrasesconcerningheatof   passionandunreasonableselfdefense.(Peoplev._Bloyd_(1987)43 h Cal.3d333,355.) d   InPeoplev._Thompkins_(1987)195_Cal.App_.3d244,thejury  toldthejudgethatitwasconfusedabouttherelationshipof l premeditationandheatofpassion.Thecourtofappealfounderror h inthejudge'sinstructionthattherewasnorelationshipbetween  thetwo: p  8  8`    "Thetwoconceptsarerelatedinthat !l" theyaremutuallyexclusive.AstheSupreme !B# CourtexplainedinPeoplev.Sanchez(1864)24 "$ Cal.17,30`Theintenttokill...mustbe #% formeduponapreexistingreflection,andnot t$& uponasuddenheatofpassionsufficientto J% ' precludetheideaofdeliberation.'This  &p!( discussioncontinuestoformthebasisforthe &F") standardCALJICinstructionon '#* [premeditation].Inresponsetothejury's (#+ inquiry,thejudgeshouldhaveaddressed x)$, himselftothisrelationship,explainingwhy N*%- thetwoconceptscannotcoexistconcurrently $+t&. ...."+J'/` x` x    ` (195_Cal.App_.3datp.251;footnoteomitted.)    Notethatthecourt,inPeoplev._Wickersham_,supra,heldthat \ "atrialcourtshouldnotinstructonheatofpassionvoluntary X manslaughterwherethesamefactswouldgiverisetoafindingof   reasonableselfdefense.[Citations;footnoteomitted.]"(32 `  Cal.3datpp.327328.)However,becauseheatofpassionand  \  unreasonableselfdefenseareshorthanddescriptionsofvoluntary   manslaughter,theyarelesserincludedoffensesofmurder.(People d  v.Barton(1995)12Cal.4th186,200201.)Accordingly,where `  thereissubstantialevidencesupportingboth,thecourtmust   instructonboth_sua_Ԁ_sponte_.(Peoplev._Breverman_(1998)19 h Cal.4th142,153164.) d    ` (b)UnreasonableSelfDefense.    InPeoplev.Flannel(1979)25Cal.3d668,674,thecourtheld l that"Anhonestbutunreasonablebeliefthatitisnecessaryto h defendoneselffromimminentperiltolifeorgreatbodilyinjury  negatesmaliceaforethought,thementalelementnecessaryfor p  murder,sothatthechargeableoffenseisreducedtomanslaughter. !l" [Emphasisomitted.]"Thisisanonstatutorybasisforvoluntary "$ manslaughter.Thecourtfurtherheldthat"Wedisagreethatthe t$& doctrineofunreasonablebeliefisnecessarilyboundupwithor  &p!( limitedbytheconceptsofeitherheatofpassionordiminished '#* capacity."(Id.,atp.677.)ForcasesafterFlannel,thecourt x)$, heldthata_sua__sponte_instructiononunreasonableselfdefense $+t&. mustbegivenwheretheevidencewarrantsit.    Recentlythecourtrevisitedthedoctrine,todetermine \ whetheritsurvivedProposition8andLegislativeamendmentsto X PenalCode188(definingmalice)asconstruedinPeoplev._Saille_   (1991)54Cal.3d1103.In_In_ԀreChristianS.(1994)7Cal.4th768, `  thecourtheldthatthedoctrinesurvived.Itcalledthedoctrine  \  "imperfectselfdefense"andheld:   8  8`    "Wecaution,however,thatthedoctrine d  isnarrow.Itrequireswithoutexceptionthat :  thedefendantmusthavehadanactualbelief `  intheneedforselfdefense.Wealso 6 emphasizewhatshouldbeobvious.Fearof   futureharmnomatterhowgreatthefearand  nomatterhowgreatthelikelihoodofthe h harmwillnotsuffice.Thedefendant'sfear > mustbeofimminentdangertolifeorgreat d bodilyinjury.`...Animminentperilisone : that,fromappearances,mustbeinstantly  dealtwith.'[Citation.]Putsimply,the  trieroffactmustfindanactualfearofan l imminentharm.Withoutthisfinding, B imperfectselfdefenseisnodefense."h` x` x    ` (7Cal.4thatp.783.Originalemphasis.)   26       >   InPeoplev._Wickersham_(1982)32Cal.3d307thecourtheld  thatmanslaughterbasedonimperfectselfdefenseisclassedasa F ! "defense"forpurposesof_sua__sponte_instruction,andnotasa !B# "lesseroffense."Thus,"thetrialcourtneedonlyinstructona #% particulardefense`ifitappearsthatthedefendantisrelyingon J% ' suchadefense,orifthereissubstantialevidencesupportiveof &F") suchadefenseandthedefenseisnotinconsistentwiththe  defendant'stheoryofthecase.'[Citation.]"(32Cal.3datp. \ 329.)TheSupremeCourt,however,hasdisapprovedofthisportion X of_Wickersham_,holdingthatunreasonableselfdefenseisnota   defense,butratherisashorthanddescriptionofoneformof `  voluntarymanslaughterandthereforeisalesserincludedoffense  \  ofmurder.(Peoplev.Barton(1995)12Cal.4th186,200201.)     ThecourtinChristianS.,supra,stated"wereiteratethat, d  justaswithperfectselfdefenseoranydefense,`[a]trialcourt `  needgivearequestedinstructionconcerningadefenseonlyif   thereissubstantialevidencetosupportthedefense.'[Citation. h Italicsadded.]"(7Cal.4thatp.783.) d   CALJICNo.5.17incorporatestheFlanneldefinitionof  imperfectselfdefense. l   InPeoplev._Uriarte_(1990)223_Cal.App_.3d192,thecourt,in h anopinionthatisnotentirelyclear,appearstohold:thatCALJIC  No.5.17appliestoanhonestbutunreasonablebeliefinthe p  necessitytodefendothers;thattheinstructionshouldbegiven !l" evenwherethebeliefisbasedondelusionalthinking(i.e.,where "$ thedefendantactuallybelieves,throughdelusionalthinking,that t$& thereisaneedtodefendagainstathreattolifeorgreatbodily  &p!( injury);andthattheinstructionwouldalsowherethebeliefis '#* basedondrugs.However,thediscussionistoanextentdicta, x)$, sincethecourtheldthattheevidencefailedtoshowthat $+t&. defendantactuallyhadsuchabelief.Nevertheless,thedicta  appeartobepersuasive.Abeliefcanbeunreasonablebecauseit \ isbasedonadelusioncausedbyamentaldisorderorintoxication. X   InPeoplev._Aris_(1989)215_Cal.App_.3d1178,thecourt   appliedthedoctrineofimperfectselfdefensetoasituation `  involvingabatteredwife,notingthattheprioractionsofthe  \  batteringhusbandarerelevanttothedefendant'sperceptionsofa   currentthreat.However,thecourtemphasizedthattherestill d  mustbeanactualbeliefinanimminentthreat: `  8  8`    "Wedistillfromthesecasestherule   thatadefendantshouldnotbeexcusedfrom  guiltofmurderwhenheorshekillstheone h whothreateneddeathorseriousbodilyinjury > unlessthedefendantatlastactually,ifnot d reasonably,perceivesinthevictim'sbehavior : atthemomentofthekillinganindication  thatthevictimisabouttoattempt,oris  attempting,tofulfillthethreat.Inmaking l thatevaluation,thedefendantisentitledto B considerpriorthreats,assaults,andother h circumstancesrelevanttointerpretingthe > attacker'sbehavior."` x` x    ` (215_Cal.App_.3datp.1189.)    Unreasonableselfdefensedoesnotapplytofelonymurder F ! sincefelonymurderdoesnothavetheelementofmalicethatcanbe !B# negatedbyunreasonableselfdefense.(Peoplev._Lostaunau_(1986) #% 181_Cal.App_.3d163,170.)Norisunreasonableselfdefense J% ' availabletoadefendantwho,throughhisownwrongfulconduct &F") (suchasinitiationofaphysicalassaultorthecommissionofa (#+ felony)hascreatedcircumstancesunderwhichhisadversarys N*%- attackorpursuitislegallyjustified.(InreChristianS.(1994) +J'/ 7Cal.4th768,773,fn.1.)Althoughsimpletrespassisnotan  assaultorafelony,underarecentcase,inwhichapetitionfor \ reviewcurrentlyispending,unreasonableselfdefenseisnot X availabletoatrespasserunlessthetrespasserfirstattemptsto   retreatorismetwithanassaultsosuddenandperilousthathe `  cannotretreat.(Peoplev._Hardin_(2000)85_Cal.App_.4th625,628  \  634.)      ` 8.InvoluntaryManslaughter . d    Involuntarymanslaughterisanunintentionalkillingcommitted ,|  withoutmalice.(Peoplev._Broussard_(1977)76_Cal.App_.3d193.) ( PenalCode192(b)definestwoclassesofinvoluntary  manslaughter: 0    ` (1)akilling"inthecommissionofanunlawfulact,not , amountingtoafelony;"or     ` (2)akilling"inthecommissionofalawfulactwhich 4 mightproducedeath,inanunlawfulmanner,orwithoutduecaution 0 andcircumspection."     Thefirstcategoryissometimesreferredtoasmisdemeanor 8!" manslaughter;thesecondissometimesreferredtoasmanslaughter "4$ duetocriminal(orgross)negligence. $&   PenalCode192(b)statesthat"Thissubdivisionshallnot <&!( applytoactscommittedinthedrivingofavehicle."  '8#*   PenalCode192(c)isaseparatesubdivisionforvehicular )$, manslaughter. @+&.   Inadditiontothetwokindsofinvoluntarymanslaughternoted  above,somecaseshaveindicatedthatinvoluntarymanslaughtermay \ beacatchallforcertainunlawfulkillingswhichdonotfit X withintheotherdefinedcategoriesofhomicide.     Thefollowingsectionsbrieflynotesomeofthesalient `  aspectsofinstructionallawconcerninginvoluntarymanslaughter.  \     ` (a)Misdemeanormanslaughter.     PenalCode192(b)providesthatakilling"inthecommission d  ofanunlawfulact,notamountingtoafelony,"isinvoluntary `  manslaughter.Themisdemeanormanslaughterruleissubjectto   certainqualifications.TheleadingcaseofPeoplev.Stuart h (1956)47Cal.2d167,173setforthtwoqualifications: d 8  8`      "[_T]he_Ԁ[unlawful]actinquestion  mustbecommittedwithcriminalintentor  criminalnegligencetobeanunlawfulact l withinthemeaningofsection192....Tobe B anunlawfulactwithinthemeaningofsection h 192,...theactinquestionmustbedangerous > tohumanlifeorsafety...."` x` x   Thislatter"dangerous"requirementisanalyzednotbyviewing p  theelementsofthemisdemeanorintheabstract,butratherby !l" analyzingthecircumstancesofitscommissioninthependingcase. "$ (Peoplev.Cox(2000)23Cal.4th665,670676.)Thisisthe t$& oppositeoftheanalysisemployedinthecontextofseconddegree  &p!( felonymurdertodetermineiftheunderlyingfelonyisinherently '#* dangeroustohumanlife.(Peoplev.Hansen(1994)9Cal.4th300, x)$, 309[Indeterminingwhetherafelonyisinherentlydangerous,the $+t&. courtlookstotheelementsofthefelonyintheabstract,notto  theparticularfactsofthecase,i.e.,nottothedefendants \ specificconduct.Italics,citationandinternalquotationmarks X omitted].)     InadditiontothequalificationssetoutinStuart,supra, `  theremustalsobesomecausation:  \  8  8`    "Wecannotignoretheelementof   causationintheunlawfulactnecessaryto   connectitwiththeoffense.Inourordinary d  phraseologywerefertotheresultofthis :  elementbysayingitmustbetheprobable `  consequencenaturallyflowingfromthe 6 commissionoftheunlawfulact." ` x` x    ` (Peoplev._Kerrick_(1927)86Cal.App.544,548.)    CALJICNo.8.45definesinvoluntarymanslaughterasincluding > akilling"Duringthecommissionofamisdemeanorwhichis : inherentlydangeroustohumanlife."     ` (b)GrossNegligence. B   PenalCode192(b)providesthatinvoluntarymanslaughteris > akilling"inthecommissionofalawfulactwhichmightproduce  death,inanunlawfulmanner,orwithoutduecautionand F ! circumspection." !B#   Thecaseshaveheldthat"withoutduecautionand #% circumspection"requiresashowingofgross(criminal)negligence. J% ' Involuntarymanslaughterbasedoncriminalnegligencemustinvolve &F") anactwhich"amanofordinaryprudencewouldforesee...would (#+ causeahighdegreeofriskofdeathorgreatbodilyharm.The N*%- riskofdeathorgreatbodilyharmmustbegreat."(Peoplev. +J'/ Rodriguez(1960)186_Cal.App_.2d433,440.)    Thelevelofgrossnegligenceisinbetweenordinary \ negligenceandimpliedmalice.TheleadingcaseofPeoplev.Penny X (1955)44Cal.2d861,879statedthedifferencebetweenordinary   negligenceandthelevelofnegligencerequiredforinvoluntary `  manslaughter:  \  8  8`    "Thenegligencemustbeaggravated,   culpable,gross,orreckless,thatis,the   conductoftheaccusedmustbesucha d  departurefromwhatwouldbetheconductofan :  ordinarilyprudentorcarefulmanunderthe `  samecircumstancesastobeincompatiblewith 6 aproperregardforhumanlife,or,inother   words,adisregardofhumanlifeoran  indifferencetoconsequences."h` x` x   Thedistinctionbetweengross(criminal)negligenceand d impliedmalicewasdescribedinPeoplev._Brito_(1991)232  _Cal.App_.3d316,321n.4: l 8  8`    "Seconddegreemurderbasedonimplied h maliceiscommittedwhenthedefendantdoes > notintendtokill,butengagesinconduct  whichendangersthelifeofanother,andacts  deliberatelywithconsciousdisregardfor p  life.[Citation.]Anessentialdistinction F ! betweenseconddegreemurderbasedonimplied !l" maliceandinvoluntarymanslaughterbasedon !B# criminalnegligence,isthatintheformerthe "$ defendantsubjectivelyrealizedtheriskto #% humanlifecreatedbyhisconduct,whereasin t$& thelatterthedefendant'sconductobjectively J% ' endangeredlife,buthedidnotsubjectively  &p!( realizetherisk."&F")` x` x ThisformulationwasfollowedinPeoplev._Klvana_(1992)11 (#+ _Cal.App_.4th1679,1704. N*%-   ThestandardCALJICinstruction(No.8.46)definescriminal +J'/ negligenceforinvoluntarymanslaughteralongthelinesnotedby  thecasesabove,andwearenotawareofanyrecentcasesraising \ challengestothisdefinition. X   However,notethatinPeoplev.Bennett(1991)54Cal.3d1032,   1036,thecourtdefinedgrossnegligenceinthecontextof `  vehicularmanslaughter:  \  8  8`    "Grossnegligenceistheexerciseofso   slightadegreeofcareastoraisea   presumptionofconsciousindifferencetothe d  consequences.[Citation.]`Thestateofmind :  ofapersonwhoactswithconscious `  indifferencetotheconsequencesissimply,"I 6 don'tcarewhathappens."'[Citation.]The   testisobjective:whetherareasonableperson  inthedefendant'spositionwouldhavebeen h awareoftheriskinvolved.[Citation.]">` x` x   Usingthephrase"consciousindifference"couldbeconfusing, : sincethatisverysimilartothe"consciousdisregard"phrase  involvedinimpliedmalice;asthecasesabovenote,the B distinctionincriminalnegligenceisthatalthoughareasonable > personwouldhavebeenconsciousoftherisk,thedefendantwasnot  infactconsciousofit.CALJICNo.8.46doesnotusethe F ! "consciousindifference"language,andinsteadmakesclearthatthe !B# testistheobjectiveone,whetherthenegligenceis"sucha #% departurefromwhatwouldbetheconductofanordinarilyprudent, J% ' carefulpersonunderthesamecircumstancesastobecontraryto &F") properregardforhumanlifeortoconstituteindifferencetothe (#+ consequencesofsuchacts."   N*%-   IntheleadingcaseofPeoplev.Burroughs(1984)35Cal.3d +J'/ 824,thecourtdealtwiththequestionwhetheranunintended  killinginthecourseofa_nondangerous_Ԅtolifefelonycanbe \ involuntarymanslaughter.Thecourtheldthatinvoluntary X manslaughterissomewhatofacatchall:"[_T]he_Ԁonlylogically   permissibleconstructionofsection192isthatanunintentional `  homicidecommittedinthecourseofa_noninherently_Ԁdangerous  \  felonymayproperlysupportaconvictionofinvoluntary   manslaughter,ifthatfelonyiscommittedwithoutduecautionand d  circumspection."(35Cal.3datp.835.)   27       `    Note,however,thatCALJIC8.45,whichdefinesinvoluntary   manslaughter,doesnotincludethedefinitionfoundinBurroughs, h althoughthecommenttoCALJIC8.45statesthatunderthespecific d factsofBurroughs,whichinvolvedahomicidethatoccurredduring  thepracticeofmedicinewithoutalicense, thedefendantmightbe l convictedoninvoluntarymanslaughterandthejuryshouldbeso h instructed.CALJIC8.45isincomplete,anditscommentabout  Burroughsistoonarrow.UnderBurroughs,ahomicideduringany p  felonythatisnotinherentlydangeroustohumanlifewhenviewed !l" intheabstractisanappropriatebasisforinvoluntary "$ manslaughter.Oneexamplewouldbeahomicideduringgrandtheft. t$& (Peoplev.Morales(1975)49_Cal.App_.3d134,143145.)Butthere  &p!( aremanyothers.(Seethediscussionofseconddegreefelony '#* murder,above,particularlypages7475.)    Anadditionalpointinconnectionwithinvoluntary \ manslaughterbasedoncriminalnegligenceisthesituationofa X defendantwhobecomesintoxicatedtothepointwhereheorshe   lacksanintenttokillandlackstheconsciousappreciationof `  riskoflifewhichdefinesimpliedmalice.InPeoplev.Ray(1975)  \  14Cal.3d20,thecourtheldthatatrialcourthasanobligation   toinstruct_sua__sponte_oninvoluntarymanslaughterinsucha d  situation: `  8  8`    "Theweightoftheevidenceof   defendant'sintoxicationwassufficientfora  jurytohavebelievedthatalthoughhewas h conscioushelackedbothmaliceandanintent > tokill.[Citation.]Thecourtwasrequired, d accordingly,tohaveinstructedthatif, : becauseofadiminishedcapacitydueto  defendant'svoluntaryintoxication,hehad  harboredneithermalicenoranintenttokill l theoffensecouldbenogreaterthan B involuntarymanslaughter."h` x` x    ` (14Cal.3datp.31.) >   InPeoplev._Saille_(1991)54Cal.3d1103,thecourtheldthat  Legislativeamendmentseliminatingthedefenseofdiminished F ! capacityandredefiningmalicemeantthatifanintenttokillis !B# shown,malicehasbeenshownandthereisnolongeralesser #% offenseofvoluntarymanslaughterinsuchasituationbasedon J% ' intoxicationorothermentalstate.(Therecanstillbevoluntary &F") manslaughterifbasedonheatofpassion,orimperfectself (#+ defense.)However,the_Saille_courtdidnotappeartodisapprove N*%- ofPeoplev.Ray,supra,concerninginvoluntarymanslaughter.If +J'/ intoxicationeliminatesbothintenttokillandconsciousdisregard  forlife,thennomalicehasbeenshownandakillingwouldbe \ involuntarymanslaughter.However,_Saille_diddisapproveofRay's X holdingthatsuchaninstructionconcerningintoxicationmustbe   given_sua__sponte_.Thecourtheldthatwhereinstructionsona `  lesseroffenseofinvoluntarymanslaughterweregiven,itwasupto  \  thedefendanttorequestfurther"pinpoint"instructionsonthe   relationshipofintoxicationtoinvoluntarymanslaughter. d    Finally,thecaseshaveheldthatinanonvehiclesituation, `  apersonwhobecomesintoxicatedtothepointofunconsciousness   andkillswhileunconsciousdoesnotharbormaliceoranintentto h kill,andthusthekillingisinvoluntarymanslaughter.Underthis d situationthelawimpliescriminalnegligenceonthepartofa  personwhovoluntarilybecomesintoxicatedtothepointof l unconsciousness.However,sincethereisnomalice,thekillingis h onlyinvoluntarymanslaughter.(Peoplev.Graham(1969)71Cal.2d  303.)CALJICadoptedastandardinstructiononthispoint(CALJIC p  No.8.47),usinglanguagefromtheGrahamopinion.However,note !l" thatPeoplev._Whitfield_(1994)7Cal.4th437heldthatvoluntary "$ intoxicationcouldbeusedtoproveimpliedmalice(atleastina t$& vehiclesituation);thus,itmaybeuncertainafter_Whitfield_  &p!( whethera(nonvehicle)killingwhileunconsciousduetovoluntary '#* intoxicationmustbeinvoluntarymanslaughter,orwhetheritcould, x)$, undersomecircumstances,bemurder(i.e.,drinkingto $+t&. unconsciousnessbeforeperformingsomedangeroustaskotherthan  driving.) \    ` (c)CatchallInvoluntaryManslaughter. X   IntheprevioussubsectionitwasnotedthatinPeoplev.   Burroughs(1984)35Cal.3d824,thecourtheldthatan `  unintentionalnegligentkillinginthecourseofanoninherently  \  dangerousfelonywasinvoluntarymanslaughter,eventhoughthe   statutorydefinitionofinvoluntarymanslaughtermightnot d  necessarilyencompasssuchanoffense.InPeoplev.Cameron(1994) `  30_Cal.App_.4th591,thecourtextendedthisreasoninginamore   generalfashion.InCameronthevictimenteredtheresidenceofa h friendofdefendant's(defendantwaspresent)andaquarrelensued. d Thevictim,amuchlargerpersonthanthedefendant,struggledwith  defendant,andinthecourseofthestrugglethevictimwasstabbed l bydefendant.Defendant'stestimonywasthatshewasintoxicated, h andthatshedidnotintendtostabthevictim.Thecourtin  Cameronstatedthatinaprevious(unpublished)casethecourthad p  formerlybelievedthatifajuryinsuchasituationdidnotfind !l" thatthedefendantactedinreasonableselfdefense(andtherefore "$ thekillingwasnotjustified),nonetheless"ifthejuryfound t$& therewasanabsenceofmaliceandanabsenceofanintenttokill  &p!( itwouldhavehadtoacquitthedefendant,eventhoughshe '#* committedanunlawfulkillingofahumanbeing."(30_Cal.App_.4th x)$, atp.603.)However,theCameroncourtreverseditself,finding $+t&. thatsucharesultwouldbeabsurd.Itheld:  8  8`    "[_I]f_Ԁakillingisunlawfulitmust \ constituteeitheramurderormanslaughter, 2 thedefiningboundarybeingmalice;ifthe X homicideisunlawfulandmaliceislackingthe . offenseismanslaughter.Iftheoffense   cannotbevoluntarymanslaughter,becausethe   caselawholdsthatvoluntarymanslaughter `  requiresanintenttokill,itismanslaughter 6   nonethelessand,afortiori,mustbe  \  involuntarymanslaughter." 2 ` x` x    ` (30_Cal.App_.4thatp.604.Footnotesomitted.)     Cameronraisesintricatequestionsconcerninghomicide,and d  itsscopeisuncertaininlightofrecentCaliforniaSupremeCourt `  caselawholdingthatintenttokillisnotarequiredelementof   voluntarymanslaughter.(Peoplev._Blakeley_(2000)23Cal.4th82, h 8791;Peoplev._Lasko_(2000)23Cal.4th101,107111.)Onone d hand,itcanbearguedthatCameronnolongerisgoodlawinsofar  asitgivesrisetoanewtheoryofinvoluntarymanslaughter.On l theotherhand,itcanbearguedthatCameron(1)stillisgoodlaw h becauseinvoluntarymanslaughterstillisanunlawfulkilled  committedwithoutmaliceandwithoutanintenttokillor(2)gives p  risetoaverdictofvoluntarymanslaughterunder_Blakeley_and !l" _Lasko_sincevoluntarymanslaughterincludesunintentionalhomicides "$ inwhichmaliceisabsent. t$&   Inexplicably,the2001revisionofCALJIC8.45contains  &p!( bracketedportionswhichstatethatunlawfulkillings [without '#* maliceaforethought,][and][withoutanintenttokill,andwithout x)$, consciousdisregardforhumanlife,]is...involuntary $+t&. manslaughter...andfurther, [[_t]here_Ԁisnomaliceaforethought  ifthekillingoccurredintheactualbutunreasonablebeliefin \ thenecessitytodefendoneselfagainstimminentperiltolifeor X greatbodilyinjury].TheCommentexplainsthattherevisionis   baseduponPeoplev._Blakeley,supra_,23Cal.4th82which,according `  totheCALJICCommittee helditwaserrortofailtoinstructthat  \  anunintentionalkillinginunreasonableselfdefensewas   involuntarymanslaughter....Asnotedearlier,whilethe d  courtsoheldwithrespectto_Blakeley_Ԁhimselfandotherswhose `  casespredatedthe_Blakeley_opinion,themainthrustofthe   _Blakeley_,and_Lasko_,isthatanunlawfulkillingwithouteither h expressmalice(i.e.,intenttokill)orimpliedmalice(i.e., d consciousdisregardforlife)isvoluntary,notinvoluntary  manslaughter,asnotedabove.NeithertheUseNotenortheComment x makeitclearthatthe2001revisionappliesonlytothatextremely $t limitedclassofdefendantswhosecrimesoccurredbeforeJune2,   2000butwhosetrialsoccurafterthatdate.Itremainstobeseen |  whatthe2002Revisionwillbring. (!x"   Federallawoffersanotherpotentialtheoryforinvoluntary "$$ manslaughter. Adefendantwhointendstouse_nondeadly_Ԁforceto $& protecthimself,butwhousesthatforceinacriminallynegligent ,&|!( wayresultingindeath,couldbefoundguiltyofinvoluntary '(#* manslaughter.(UnitedStatesv.Anderson(9thCir.2000)201F.3d )$, 1145,1151.) 0+&.    ` (d)AttemptedInvoluntaryManslaughter.    Sinceinvoluntarymanslaughterisanunintentionalkilling, \ thereisnosuchcrimeasattemptedinvoluntarymanslaughter."An X `attempt'tocommitinvoluntarymanslaughterwouldrequirethatthe   defendantintendtoperpetrateanunintentionalkillingalogical `  impossibility."(Peoplev._Broussard_(1977)76_Cal.App_.3d193,  \  197.Seealso,Peoplev._Brito_(1991)232_Cal.App_.3d316.))      `      % < B. LesserIncludedOffenses%<i . `     ` 1.LesserIncludedOffenses .    Anindictmentorinformationchargingmurder...also L chargesalllesseroffensesnecessarilyincludedinmurder, H includingvoluntaryandinvoluntarymanslaughter.(Inre  _McCartney_(1966)64Cal.2d830,831.) P   Thus,seconddegreemurderisalesserincludedoffenseof L firstdegreemurder.(Peoplev.Cooper(1991)53Cal.3d771,827.)   Similarly,manslaughterisalesseroffenseofmurder.(Peoplev. T!" _Berryman_(1993)6Cal.4th1048,1080.) #P$   Ithasbeenheldthatwhilebothinvoluntaryandvoluntary $& manslaughterare_lessers_Ԁofmurder,involuntarymanslaughterisnot X&!( alesserincludedoffenseofvoluntarymanslaughtersincethe (T#* lattercanbecommittedwithoutcommittinginvoluntary )%, manslaughter.(Peoplev.Orr(1994)22_Cal.App_.4th780,784785.) \+&.   Generally,involuntarymanslaughterisalesseroffense  withinthecrimeofmurder.(Peoplev._Prettyman_(1996)14 \ Cal.4th248,274.)However,"itcouldbearguedthatbasedona X misdemeanormanslaughtertheory[involuntarymanslaughter]isnot   alesserincludedoffenseofseconddegreemurderwhere...the `  underlyingmisdemeanorisnotalesserincludedoffenseofthe  \  chargedfelony."(Peoplev.Edwards(1985)39Cal.3d107,116,fn.   10.) d    Notethatsincemaliceisnotanelementoffelonymurder, `  thereisnolesseroffenseofheatofpassionmanslaughterto   felonymurdersinceheatofpassionreducesmalice.(Peoplev. h _Balderas_(1985)41Cal.3d144,196197.)Thesameistruefor d unreasonableselfdefensemanslaughter.(Peoplev._Lostaunau_  (1986)181_Cal.App_.3d163,170.) l   Tworecentcasesholdingthatcertainoffensesarenotlesser h includedoffensesare:childendangermentisnotalesserof  torturemurderbecausethevictimsoftorturemurdercanbeadults p  (Peoplev._Mincey_(1992)2Cal.4th408,452);assaultwithadeadly !l" weaponisnotalesserofattemptedmurder(Peoplev._Gragg_(1989) "$ 216_Cal.App_.3d32,41).See1_Witkin_Ԁ&Epstein,California t$& CriminalLaw(3ded.2000),Defenses,173forapartiallisting  &p!( ofoffenseswhichhavebeenheldnottobeincludedoffensesof '#* murder. x)$,   Anumberofrecentcaseshaveconsideredwhethertherewas $+t&. sufficientevidencetowarrantthegivingofinstructionsona  lesseroffense.Abrieflistingofsomeofthesecasesincludes: \   Casesfindingthatinstructionsshouldhavebeengiven: X   Peoplev.Edwards(1985)39Cal.3d107,113114.(Errorin   refusingtoinstructonlesserofinvoluntarymanslaughterwhere `  defendantgaveherointothedeceased.)  \    Peoplev.Brooks(1986)185_Cal.App_.3d687,693694.(Error   infailingtoinstructonlesserofvoluntarymanslaughter d  whereevidenceshowedthatdefendantshotamanwhomhethought `  stabbedhisbrothertwohoursearlier.)     Peoplev._McCowan_(1986)182_Cal.App_.3d1,1516.(Errorto h failtoinstructonheatofpassionvoluntarymanslaughterwhere d therewasevidencethatdefendantbecameenragedwhenonevictim  gesturedobscenelyathim,eventhoughdefendantwasnotrelyingon l thatlesser.) h   Peoplev._Thompkins_(1987)195_Cal.App_.3d244,256.(Court  had_sua__sponte_dutytoinstructonlesserofattemptedvoluntary p  manslaughterinattemptedmurdercase,evenoverdefenseobjection, !l" wheretheevidenceshowedpossibleheatofpassiondefensebecause "$ defendantdiscoveredhiswifeinbedwithanotherman.) t$&   Peoplev._Daya_(1994)29_Cal.App_.4th697,712719.(Proper  &p!( forcourttoinstructonlesserofseconddegreemurder,evenover '#* defenseobjection,wherewantonnatureofthecrimescouldhave x)$, shownlackofpremeditationanddeliberation.) $+t&.   Casesfindingnodutytoinstructonlesser:    Peoplev._Brito_(1991)232_Cal.App_.3d316,320325.(Noduty \ toinstructonattemptedinvoluntarymanslaughtersincesuch X offenseislogicalimpossibility.)     Peoplev._Hendricks_(1988)44Cal.3d635,643.(Noerrorin `  refusingtoinstructoninvoluntarymanslaughterwhereevidence  \  showedthatdefendantshotvictimfivetimesatpointblankrange.   Defendant'stapedstatementdenyingintenttokillwasnot d  substantialevidenceunderthecircumstances.) `    Peoplev._Bunyard_(1988)45Cal.3d1189,12331234.(Noduty   toinstructonseconddegreemurderbasedonimpliedmalice h regardingdeathoffetus,wheredefendantshotninemonthspregnant d victiminheadatcloserange.)    Peoplev.Wilson(1992)3Cal.4th926,940941.(Noerrorin l failingtoinstructonlesserofseconddegreemurderwhere h evidenceshowedthatvictim'swalletwastakenandhewasshot  twiceinthehead.)   p     ` 2._Kurtzman_ԀRequirementOrderofVerdictand !l"    `  Deliberations . "P#     Inthemid1980'stherewasconsiderablelitigationover the # % standardCALJICinstructionsconcerningthejury'sdeliberation % ' about,andreturnofverdictson,lesseroffenses.Finally,in .'~") Peoplev._Kurtzman_(1988)46Cal.3d322,thecourtheldthatitis (*$+ correcttoinstructthejurythatitcannotreturnaverdictona *%- lesseroffenseunlessitagreedunanimouslythatthedefendantwas 2,'/ notguiltyofthegreater,butthatitisincorrecttoinstructthe  jurythatitcannotdeliberateonthelesserbeforeitreturnsa \ verdictonthegreater. X   Accordingly,CALJICreviseditsstandardinstructionsto   incorporatethe_Kurtzman_holding.Inthehomicidecontext,CALJIC `  8.75wasrevisedtoaccommodate_Kurtzman_.CALJIC8.75washeldto  \  bevalidinPeoplev._Nicolaus_(1991)54Cal.3d551,580:   8  8`    "InPeoplev._Kurtzman_[citation]we d  construedour[priorholdings]`toauthorize :  aninstructionthatthejurymaynotreturna `  verdictonthelesseroffenseunlessithas 6 agreed...thatdefendantisnotguiltyof   thegreatercrimecharged,butitshouldnot  beinterpretedtoprohibitajuryfrom h consideringordiscussingthelesseroffenses > beforereturningaverdictonthegreater d offense.'(46Cal.3datp.329,original : italics.)ThisispreciselywhatCALJIC8.75  does.AsinPeoplev.Hunter(1989)49Cal.3d  957,atpage976,`wefindnothinginthe l pertinentlanguageoftheinstructionasgiven B hereorintherecordofthejury's h deliberationsasawhole,tosuggestthatthe > jurybelieveditmustreturnaverdictonthe  greateroffensebeforeitcouldconsideror  discussthelesserincludedoffenses. p  [Citation.]Accordingly,wefindnoerrorin F ! thecourt'sinstructinginthelanguageof !l" CALJICNo.8.75.'"Ӏ(Originalemphasis.)!B#` x` x   CALJIC8.75,asrevised,seemstomakecleartothejurythat #% itcanconsidertheoffensesinanyorder.Itstates,inpart: J% ' "[_Y]ou_Ԁaretodeterminewhetherthedefendantisguiltyornot &F") guiltyofmurderinthefirstdegreeorofanylessercrime (#+ thereto.Indoingso,youhavediscretiontochoosetheorderin N*%- whichyouevaluateeachcrimeandconsidertheevidencepertaining +J'/ toit.Youmayfindittobeproductivetoconsiderandreach  tentativeconclusionsonallchargedandlessercrimesbefore \ reachinganyfinal_verdict[s_]."Theinstructionthengoesonto X specifythatinreturningverdicts,thejurymustfirstunanimously   reachagreementonthegreateroffensebeforereturningaverdict `  onthelesseroffense.  \    Inconnectionwithgreater/lesserissues,notethatthecourt   inPeoplev._Avalos_(1984)37Cal.3d216heldthatthejuryshould d  beinstructedthatbeforetheycouldreturnaverdictregardingany `  degreeofhomicide,firstorsecond,theymustbeunanimousin   agreementastothatdegree.Thisholdingwasbasedinparton h PenalCode1157: d 8  8`      "TheAttorneyGeneral'sargument  that...trialcourts[have]theoptionof  applyingsection1157whenajuryisunableto l reachaverdictondegreefliesinthefaceof B ...themandatorylanguageofsection h 1157:`...thejury...mustfindthedegreeof > thecrime....Uponthefailureofthejury  ...tosodetermine,thedegreeofthecrime  ...shallbedeemedtobeofthelesser p  degree.'(Italicsadded.)Thestatutory F ! languageleavesnoroomforthediscretion !l" respondentwishestovestinthetrialcourt."!B#` x` x    ` (37Cal.3datp.226.) "$   Thus,thecourtfounderror: t$& 8  8`    "Indefendant'scasethejurywas  &p!( deadlockedastodefendant'sguiltofboth &F") firstandseconddegreemurder.Theyreturned '#* averdictofmurderonlyafterthecourt (#+ erroneouslyinstructedthattheycouldbythat x)$, methodavoidthenecessityforreaching N*%- unanimityonthequestionofdegree."$+t&.` x` x    ` (37Cal.3datp.227.) +J'/ Ї   ` 3.DewberryRequirementReasonableDoubtas     `  toDegreeandastoGreater/Lesser .    InPeoplev.Dewberry(1959)51Cal.2d548,555,thecourt \ held:"Ithasbeenconsistentlyheldinthisstatesince1880that  X whentheevidenceissufficienttosupportafindingofguiltof   boththeoffensechargedandalesserincludedoffense,thejury `   mustbeinstructedthatiftheyentertainareasonabledoubtasto  \  whichoffensehasbeencommitted,theymustfindthedefendant   guiltyonlyofthelesseroffense." d    CALJIChastwostandardinstructions(Nos.8.71and8.72) ` whichclearlyfollowDewberry,withregardtodoubtbetweenfirst   andseconddegreemurder,anddoubtbetweenmurderand h manslaughter.Theinstructionshavebeenapprovedasconsistent d withDewberry.(Peoplev.Morse(1964)60Cal.2d631,656657.)  Wheretheinstructionsaregiven,therewouldbenoDewberryissue. l Ithasbeenheldthattheinstructionmustbegiven_sua__sponte_. h (Peoplev._Aikin_(1971)19_Cal.App_.3d685,disapprovedonother  groundsinPeoplev.Lines(1975)13Cal.3d500.) p !   However,ifthespecificDewberryinstructioniserroneously "l# omitted,thereisaquestionwhethertheerrorisobviatedbythe #% givingofthestandardinstructioninformingthejurythatifthe t% ' juryisnotunanimouslysatisfiedbeyondareasonabledoubtthat  'p") thedefendantisguiltyofthegreateroffense,itmayconvictthe ($+ defendantofthelesseroffenseifitissatisfiedbeyonda x*%- reasonabledoubtthatthedefendantisguiltyofthelesser. $,t'/ (CALJIC8.75statesthisprincipleforhomicides;CALJIC17.10  statesthesameprincipleforotheroffenses.) \   Therearesomecaseswhichhavedealtwiththeissueinthe X nonhomicidecontext.InPeoplev.Gonzalez(1983)141_Cal.App_.3d   789andPeoplev.St.Germain(1982)138_Cal.App_.3d507,thecourts `  foundthatgivingthegeneralCALJIC17.10wassufficient._    28      _Ԁ  \    Onecasehasfounderrorinmerelygivingthegeneral   greater/lesserinstruction,andnotthespecificDewberry d  instructionaswell.InPeoplev.Reeves(1981)123_Cal.App_.3d65, `  70,_!<   29      _Ԁthecourtsimplynoted,withoutmuchdiscussion:   8  8`    "Thejuryshould,[defendant]contends, h havebeeninstructedtoconsiderthecharged > offenseandanylesseroffensetogether,and, d ifareasonabledoubtaroseastowhich : offensewascommitted,shouldhaveconvicted  thedefendantofthelesseroffenseonly.  [Par.]Theformoftheinstructionproposed l byappellantappearstobecorrect,andthe B instructionsasgivenconstituteerror. h (Peoplev._Aikin_(1971)19_Cal.App_.3d685, > 703704.)"` x` x   TheReevescourt,however,foundtheerrorharmless. p    Thus,inahomicidecaseifthecourtomitsthespecific !l" Dewberryinstructions(CALJIC8.71and8.72),butgivesthegeneral "$ greater/lesserinstruction(CALJIC8.75)therewouldstillseemto t$& beanarguableissuewhetherCALJIC8.75eliminatedanyDewberry  &p!( error."   30          InconnectionwithDewberryissues,notethediscussionof \ Peoplev._Avalos_(1984)37Cal.3d216,intheprecedingsubsection, X regardingtherequirementthatthejurymustbeunanimousasto   degreebeforeitcanreturnaverdictastoanydegree.  `    % = C.JustificationandExcuse%=   \    Adetaileddiscussionofjustifiableandexcusablehomicideis $  beyondthescopeofthesematerials.     Inbrief,PenalCode196199setforththedefinitionsof ,|  justifiablehomicideanddeclarethatjustifiablehomicidesarenot ( criminal.    PenalCode196statesthathomicidescommittedbypublic 0 officersarejustifiablewhenthekillingisnecessaryinthe , coursecarryingoutalegaldutyorarrestingafelonwhois  fleeingorresistingarrest. 4   PenalCode197statesthathomicidesarejustifiable:(1) 0 whencommittedbyapersonindefenseagainstdeath,orafelony,   orgreatbodilyinjury;(2)whencommittedindefenseofhabitation 8!" againstonewhomanifestlyintendsbyviolenceorsurpriseto "4$ commitafelonyortoviolentlyenterthehabitationforthe $& purposeofcommittingviolenceagainstsomeoneinside;(3)when <&!( committedindefenseofaspouse,parent,childorservantagainst '8#* afelonyorgreatbodilyinjury;and(4)whennecessarilycommitted  inattemptingbylawfulmeanstoapprehendapersonforafelony \ committed.PenalCode198providesthatforahomicidetobe X justifiableindefenseofhabitationorindefenseofothers,a   "barefear"isnotsufficientandthecircumstancesmustbesuch `  thatareasonablepersonwouldhavehadsuchfears,andthatthe  \  killermusthaveactedoutofsuchfearalone.     PenalCode198.5,astatuteenactedin1984,providesthat d  whereapersonusesdeadlyforceinsidehisorherresidence `  againstsomeonewhohasforciblyandunlawfullyenteredthe   residence,thatpersonis"presumedtohaveheldareasonablefear h ofimminentperilofdeathorgreatbodilyinjurytoself,family, d oramemberofthehousehold...."    PenalCode199declaresthatjustifiableandexcusable l homicidesarenotpunishable. h   Thestatutorybasisforexcusablehomicideissetforthin  PenalCode195.Excusablehomicidesarethose:(1)committedby p  accident,orindoingalawfulactbylawfulmeansandlawful !l" intent,withordinarycaution;and(2)committedbyaccidentinthe "$ heatofpassionuponsufficientprovocation,oruponsuddencombat, t$& wherenoweaponisusedandnoundueadvantageistaken.Asnoted,  &p!( PenalCode199declaresthatexcusablehomicidesarenot '#* punishable.#XCXX,XC~#