 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Barton12/18/1995
lesser offense necessarily included in the crime of murder, the information provided sufficient notice to defendant that the charge against him included the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. (See People v. Toro (1989) 47 Cal. 3d 966, 973, 254 Cal. Rptr. 811, 766 P.2d 577; People v. Lohbauer, supra, 29 Cal. 3d at pp. 368-369; In re Arthur N. (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 226, 233, 545 p.2d 1345, 127 Cal. Rptr. 641.) Accordingly, the trial court's instruction on voluntary manslaughter did not deprive defendant of his due process right to adequate notice.
Conclusion
" defendant has no legitimate interest in compelling the jury to adopt an all or nothing approach to the issue of guilt. Our courts are not gambling halls but forums for the discovery of truth." ( People v. St. Martin, supra, 1 Cal. 3d at p. 533.) In this case, defendant was prepared to roll the dice in a high stakes game of chance, betting that the jury, faced with the choice of convicting him of murder or acquitting him entirely, would find him not guilty. If successful, this gamble would have served defendant's interests. It would not, however, have served the interests of Justice, for it would have denied the jury the chance to consider the possibility, between the extremes of a murder conviction and an acquittal, that defendant was guilty of voluntary manslaughter, a lesser offense included in murder. Instructions that fail to inform the jury of its option to convict the defendant of a lesser included offense shown by the evidence are necessarily incomplete. "Trial courts have a sua sponte duty to instruct regarding lesser included offenses because neither the defendant nor the People have a right to incomplete instructions." ( People v. Eilers (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 288, 296, 282 Cal. Rptr. 252.) Thus, the trial court in this case properly instructed the jury on voluntary manslaughter, a lesser offense included in the crime of murder with which defendant was charged.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
LUCAS, C.J., MOSK, J., ARABIAN, J., BAXTER, J., GEORGE, J. and WERDEGAR, J., Concurring.
Disposition
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|