Does a jury have a constitutional obligation to instruct the jury that before they convict a defendant of a liquor store robbery they must agree unanimously that he committed the crime?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hamilton, 249 Cal.Rptr. 320, 46 Cal.3d 123, 756 P.2d 1348 (Cal. 1988):
[46 Cal.3d 145] Defendant also claims that the court was under a constitutional obligation to instruct the jurors that before they could consider the evidence of the liquor store robbery they had to agree unanimously that he had committed the crime. In People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d 57, 99, 241 Cal.Rptr. 594, 744 P.2d 1127, however, we rejected essentially the same point.
Finally, defendant claims that the court was under a constitutional obligation to require the jury to return a written finding stating whether or not it found him guilty of the liquor store robbery. In People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1203, 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301, however, we rejected the point.
B. Issues Relating to the Instruction Pursuant to Penal Code Section 190.3
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
