PG VII(A) Introduction.
As Justice Mosk observed in his dissent in In re Jackson (92) 3 C4th 578, 616-17 [11 CR2d 531]:
“It is a melancholy truth that as the final arbiter of the meaning and effect of the California Constitution, this court can with impunity deny our citizens rights guaranteed by that charter. What this court cannot do with impunity is deny our citizens rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Fortunately for petitioner, on the questions in issue this Supreme Court is neither infallible nor final.”
Given this reality, providing a federal constitutional basis for instructional issues in state court is more important than ever. The necessity for preservation of federal constitutional issues related to jury instructions at the trial level was emphasized in Sochor v. Florida (92) 504 US 527 [119 LEd2d 326, 337-38; 112 SCt 2114]. In a 7-2 opinion, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the issue because there was no objection to the instruction at trial and the Florida courts held the issue was not preserved for appeal. (See also, People v. Gordon (90) 50 C3d 1223, 1249 fn 2 [270 CR 451] [issue procedurally defaulted for failure of trial counsel to state federal constitutional bases for objection to evidence].)