Is there any error in the use of "equally guilty" language in the second-degree murder instruction?

But even if we found error in the use of the "equally guilty" language here, the error would necessarily be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Samaniego, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1165 ["[a]n instruction that omits or misdescribes an

Page 17

element of a charged offense violates the right to jury trial guaranteed by our federal Constitution, and the effect of this violation is measured against the harmless error test of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24"].) Appellant was convicted of second degree murder, rather than first degree murder, and second degree murder was the lowest level of criminal culpability considered by the jury (there were no instructions regarding voluntary or involuntary manslaughter). Thus, even if the jury had been instructed that appellant could be guilty of second degree murder as an aider and abettor where the principal was guilty of first degree murder, appellant could not have received a better result because he was, in fact, convicted of second degree murder.

Moreover, the jury expressly found that appellant personally used and discharged a firearm, and that a principal personally used, discharged, and proximately caused death with a firearm. Based on these findings, appellant cannot show any possibility that the jury would have acquitted him of murder, which was the only option lower than second degree murder available to the jury, even assuming the "equally guilty" language was erroneous in this case. (People v. Samaniego, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166 [holding any error regarding the "equally guilty" language was rendered harmless by the jury's other special findings].)