 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Starr6/26/2002
so note that the requirement that jurors notify the trial court of a failure to follow instructions is as much a benefit to appellant as to the prosecution. Appellant fails to call our attention to anything in the record that indicates the jury misunderstood its duty, engaged in misconduct, or had difficulty reaching a unanimous verdict.
With regard to jury nullification, that is, the ability not to apply criminal sanctions which conflict with the conscience of the community, appellant acknowledges the California Supreme Court disapproves of the practice. The court has stated that the concept is "contrary to our ideal of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law." (People v. Williams, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 463; and see discussion at pp. 449-463.)
Even were we to hold that delivery of this instruction constituted constitutional error, on this record it is not structural error defying assessment of its impact on the jury, and therefore it would not be reversible per se. (People v. Molina (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1331-1335.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
We concur:
NOTT
ASHMANN-GERST
|