People v. Prescott5/22/2002
is a violation of Penal Code section 1138. Appellant however cites no authority addressing what effect such an omission has, or what part this omission should play in our resolution of appellant's claims. Respondent similarly acknowledges there were no responses to the jury's first questions, and without citation to authority, asserts any error was not prejudicial. In People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, our Supreme Court held it was incumbent upon the appellant to establish prejudice as a result of the failure to address a jury's questions. In Roberts as here, there was no indication in the record to indicate the court ever answered the questions, or whether the defendant's counsel was even aware the jury had asked any questions. The court, recognizing it is error for the trial court not to reply to a jury's questions, analyzed the error as one of state law, finding it was not reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been reached in the absence of the error. (Id. at pp. 325-326.)
Where the court's instructions on the law are full and complete, the court has discretion, after consultation with counsel, to decline to provide additional explanation on the instructions given. (People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 96-98.) A refusal of the court to provide additional explication requires appellant to establish prejudice. (Ibid.) Here, the jury was instructed with CALJIC No. 16.141, which defines battery. The jury's request for clarification of the term resisting did not call for additional explanation. "The law is settled that when terms have no technical meaning peculiar to the law, but are commonly understood by those familiar with the English language, instructions as to their meaning are not required." (People v. Anderson (1966) 64 Cal.2d 633, 639.)
As to the "elements for conviction/non-conviction" the jury was instructed on the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, CALJIC No. 2.90. The jury was also instructed on the elements of the charges, which contained the requirement that those elements be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, as stated above, the instructions, as given, did not include all of the elements necessary to establish appellant's guilt, nor fully explain appellant's right, if any, to use self-defense under custodial circumstances.
The jury's second inquiry came at 11:00 a.m. on January 10, 2001. "Number one, clarification on if battery is occuring at the same time as resisting arrest or if the battery against Bicknell is a separate legal issue, slash, charge. [ ]...[ ] Number two, does the battery apply to the charge, slash, punch, slash, apple of Bicknell only."
After discussing the jury's questions with counsel, the court responded to the jury's queries:
"The Court has received a note from the jury foreperson. I'm going to read the two issues, which have been addressed to the Court. [ ] Number one, clarification on if battery is occurring at the same time as resisting arrest or if the battery against Bicknell is a separate legal issue, slash, charge. [ ] I'm not totally clear what you mean by that, but I think I deciphered what is meant by that question. I will tell you this, that you can have both the battery and the resisting arrest occurring at the same time with the same facts. Both of them have different elements, you will recall, in your instructions that you have in there for elements of battery and resisting arrest. It can be occurring out of the same incident, that you can have two separate crimes happening. [ ] Number two, does the battery apply to the charge, slash, punch, slash, apple of Bicknell only? [ ] And the answer to that question -- the answer to question number one was yes, by the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|