California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Nunez, 271 Cal.Rptr.3d 191, 57 Cal.App.5th 78 (Cal. App. 2020):
As the trial court noted at the hearing on defendant's petition, the jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 703. Specifically, the jury was told that in order to find the special circumstance true, the People had to prove either that defendant intended to kill or that defendant was a major participant in the crime and acted with reckless indifference to human life. The jury then found the special circumstance of felony murder true. Because the jury was instructed that in order to find the special circumstance true it had to find that defendant either intended to kill the victim or that he was a major participant in the kidnapping who acted with reckless indifference to the victim's life and then found the special circumstance true, the jury necessarily found either intent or that defendant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. ( People v. Felix (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 849, 865, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 947 [the appellate court presumes that the jury followed the instructions as given].)
Moreover, I conclude that that finding stands under People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 208, 351 P.3d 330 ( Banks ) and
[57 Cal.App.5th 98]
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.