 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Scott6/21/2002
nale trier of fact would have found that defendant's inherently contradictory statements were attempts to cover up his attempted robbery the day before. The only facts within those statements which appear to deserve credibility are ones defendant admitted against his own self-interest while trying to minimize his culpability; for example, in his attempted self-serving summary, he acknowledged that he took Flores's wallet by force and that the wallet and money were lying on the ground. While defendant tried to minimize his culpability by claiming he accidentally pulled the wallet from Flores's pocket and then dropped it, the more logical explanation is that defendant, who moments earlier had declared that he needed money, intended to rob Flores, forcibly took money out of Flores's wallet in an attempt to take it, and then dropped the wallet and the $20 bills when Flores screamed for help and a crowd began to gather. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we are convinced substantial evidence supported the verdict of attempted robbery.
Propriety of Instructions on Self-Defense
Defendant next contends the instructions on self-defense were superfluous and therefore require reversal. The People concede the self-defense instructions were "irrelevant" and "inapplicable to the analysis of the case" and then alternatively argue that the error was either invited or harmless.
Before instructing the jury, the trial court and counsel went over the jury instructions off the record. The final instructions included the following series of CALJIC self-defense instructions: No. 5.30 [self-defense against assault]; No. 5.50 [self-defense - - assailed person need not retreat]; No. 5.51 [self-defense - - actual danger necessary]; No. 5.52 [self-defense - -when danger ceases]; No. 5.53 [ self-defense not an excuse after adversary disabled]; No. 5.54 [self-defense by an aggressor]; No. 5.55 [plea of self-defense may not be contrived]; No. 5.56 [self-defense - - participants in mutual combat]. On the record, the trial court noted that the final instructions had been "discussed pretty thoroughly" and that the instructions seemed "to be agreeable to all the parties." It then asked defense counsel if she was satisfied with the instructions. When counsel said she did not think No. 5.56 applied, "but that's the only thing that I have any problem with," the court replied that, since all other self-defense instructions were being given, the mutual combat instruction would be included.
The doctrine of invited error does not apply here, where the record does not substantiate a claim that defense counsel intentionally caused the trial court to err and did so for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake. (People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 330-331.) However, we agree with the People that the trial court's instructing the jury with the superfluous self-defense instructions was harmless.
"An abstract instruction (i.e., one that is correct in law but irrelevant) may be prejudicial error when it could confuse the jury. . . . But in most cases the giving of an abstract instruction is only a technical error that does not constitute ground for reversal. [Citations.]" (5 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d. ed 2000) Criminal Trial § 669, pp. 960-961.) For example, in People v. Hairgrove (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 606, 609, the court found an aiding and abetting instruction irrelevant and then held that, " ecause the erroneous instructions were so clearly inapplicable, we are convinced the jury disregarded them in reaching its verdict."
A similar conclusion is compelled here. The jury was instructed to determine if defendant committed an at
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|