What is the test for determining the correctness of jury instructions in a murder trial?

We independently review the correctness of jury instructions. (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733.) If the instruction is ambiguous, we inquire "whether there is

Page 23

a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way" that violates the Constitution. (Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 380.)

Serna claims the instructions are ambiguous because "careful consideration" necessarily requires "meaningful reflection." We are not persuaded. It is possible to reflect on a matter in a way that is "careful" yet not "meaningful." Reviewing the instructions as a whole, and assuming jurors are capable of understanding and correlating instructions, there is no reasonable likelihood the jury misapplied the instruction. Furthermore, the language is taken nearly verbatim from the statute defining first degree murder: "To prove the killing was 'deliberate and premeditated,' it shall not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully reflected upon the gravity of his or her act." ( 189.) " '[T]he language of a statute defining a crime or defense is generally an appropriate and desirable basis for an instruction, and is ordinarily sufficient when the defendant fails to request amplification. If the jury would have no difficulty in understanding the statute without guidance, the court need do no more than instruct in statutory language.' " (People v. Estrada (1995) 11 Cal.4th 568, 574, quoting People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal.3d 306, 327.)