Does a jury have a duty to instruct on a lesser included charge of involuntary manslaughter?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Roberson, A136135 (Cal. App. 2013):
The trial court has a duty to instruct on lesser included offenses when the evidence raises a question as to whether all the elements of the charged offense were present. (People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 239.) Even though it may be clear, as it is here, that all the elements of the charged offense were present with regard to the direct perpetrator, the evidence may raise a question as to whether all the elements were foreseeable to the aider-abettor. In that case, the trial court has a duty to instruct the jury
Page 13
on the lesser included offense and to explain what the jury's choices are when considering application of the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (See People v. Huynh (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 662, 681 [concluding that because target offenses of conspiracy to commit an assault and a battery could be misdemeanors, the trial court should have instructed sua sponte on involuntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense of murder].)
"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.
