Return to CALJIC Part 5-8 – Contents
F 8.72 n1 Doubt Whether Murder or Manslaughter (PC 187).
A defendant’s intent to scare rather than to kill the victim supports an involuntary manslaughter instruction as long as the evidence is not completely inconsistent with the stated lack of intent to kill. (People v. LopezUNPUBLISHED (9/30/96, B095782). [The Lopez opinion is available to FORECITE subscribers. Ask for Opinion Bank # O-213.])
F 8.72 n2 Whether CJ 17.10 Relieves Need To Give CJ 8.72.
The impact of giving CJ 17.10 on the duty to give CJ 8.72 is subject to dispute. Compare People v. Barajas (2004) 120 CA4th 787 [no sua sponte obligation to give CJ 8.72 when CJ 17.10 is given]; People v. St. Germain (82) 138 CA3d 507 [no obligation to give CJ 8.72 sua sponte or on request] with People v. Reeves (81) 123 CA3d 65 [CJ 8.72 required sua sponte even if CJ 17.10 is given]; People v. Dewberry (59) 51 C2d 548 [CJ 8.72 required sua sponte]; People v. Aikin (71) 19 CA3d 685 [same].
F 8.72a
Doubt Whether Voluntary Or Involuntary Manslaughter
(PC 187)
*Add to CJ 8.72:
If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and unanimously agree that the killing was unlawful, but have a reasonable doubt whether the crime is voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter, you must give the defendant the benefit of that doubt and find it to be involuntary manslaughter rather than voluntary manslaughter.
Points and Authorities
See CJ 8.72. See also FORECITE F 17.10a.