Does the term "maliciousness" apply to a murder charge?

The cases cited by defendant are inapposite. In each case, the incorrect definition of malice was specifically given in conjunction with a murder charge, not in association with a separate offense that required the jury to find the defendant acted maliciously. (See People v. Shade (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 711, 714 [defendant charged with murder only]; People v. Price (1965) 63 Cal.2d 370, 374 [defendant charged with murder, robbery, and auto theft]; People v. Chavez (1951) 37 Cal.2d 656, 666-667 [defendant charged with murder only].)

Page 32

In sum, we find no instructional error concerning the term malice.

Defendant contends the trial court committed several errors at the sentencing hearing. Defendant contends the trial court should have (1) held a Marsden hearing (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) when he indicated he wanted to replace his retained attorneys, (2) ruled on his motion for a new trial, and (3) replaced retained counsel with appointed counsel or granted a continuance so he could retain a new attorney.