Does a jury have a sua sponte obligation to instruct on the elements of the underlying charged offense?

West again asserts the court had a sua sponte obligation to instruct on the elements of the underlying charged offense because the omitted instructions constituted " ' "principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury's understanding of the case." ' " (People v. Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 154.) We disagree. The record demonstrates that both the court and the parties explained to the jury the rather unusual nature of the jeopardy trial, at which West's guilt or innocence was not at issue, and at which the defense bore the burden of proving the prosecution's intent at the February 2015 trial by a preponderance of the

Page 18