Does a jury have a duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law?

"A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel" (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638) and the trial court's instruction to the jury pursuant to CALCRIM No. 505 accurately and adequately advised the jury of the requirements, relevant to defendant's claim here, that he "reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury or was in imminent danger of being raped," that he "reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger," and that he "acted only because of that belief." The prosecutor did not suggest to the jury that defendant was precluded under the law from feeling any emotion other than fear. Rather, based on defendant's testimony regarding his feeling of

Page 37

anger, the prosecutor's argument that defendant acted out of anger rather than fear was proper commentary on the evidence.¹⁴

Lastly, defendant's reliance on People v. Young (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 641 for the proposition that prejudicial error occurred is misplaced. In People v. Young, the defendant and the victim were having coffee together at a caf when the victim, who had a reputation as a "quarrelsome trouble maker," grabbed the defendant's cash, the sum of which was the defendant's employment pay. (Id. at p. 646.) The two men proceeded to engage in a protracted physical altercation during which they were both armed with knives. (Id. at pp. 646-647.) The altercation ultimately ended outside the caf with the victim dead from multiple stab wounds. (Id. at pp. 649-650.)