 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Kozlowski3/4/2002
n. It properly left to the jury the duty "to make all essential factual determinations" (People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 444; People v. Thompson (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 40, 60), such as whether property was wrongfully obtained and by whom. Because we have previously determined that a PIN code may be properly capable of being extorted, the instruction was legally correct and did not remove from the jury's determination an essential element of the crime.
B. CALJIC No. 17.41.1
Kozlowski and Gatson also contend that the trial court erred in giving CALJIC No. 17.41.1. They characterize this instruction as one that tells the jurors that they have a duty to inform on one another. As such, they reason that it discourages the jurors' candid exchanges of views by rendering the privacy of the jury deliberations a fiction. They also argue that the instruction is impermissible as contrary to the jury's power of nullification. The People sought this jury instruction, which the trial court gave. The jury was instructed that: "The integrity of the trial requires that jurors, at all times during their deliberation, conduct themselves as required by these instructions.
Accordingly, should it occur that any juror refuses to deliberate, expresses an intention to disregard the law, or to decide the case based on penalty or punishment, or any other improper basis, it is the obligation of the other jurors to immediately advise the Court of the situation." (See CALJIC No. 17.41.1 (1998 new).)
As Kozlowski requested this jury instruction, he may not challenge it on appeal. An appellant may not raise an issue on appeal when the claimed error was invited. (See People v. Thoi (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 689, 698 fn. 6; People v. Williams (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1025; see also 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law, supra, Reversible Error, ยง 31, p. 489.) However, as Gatson did not seek this instruction, we address the merits of the claim as it pertains to him.
We find no error in the giving of this standard jury instruction. For more than 300 years, jurors have had the power to nullify or disregard the trial court's instructions and the evidence, returning an acquittal when the law and the evidence dictate otherwise. (People v. Baca (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1703, 1707; People v. Fernandez (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 710, 714.) However, despite the power of nullification, there is no right to nullify a verdict. The idea that such a right exists is virtually without support in modern American law. (People v. Baca, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1707; see United States v. Dougherty (D.C. Cir. 1972) 473 F.2d 1113, 1143 [conc. & dis. opn. of Bazelon, C.J.].) The jury has only the right to find facts and apply them to the law as the trial court instructs them on the law. (People v. Lem You (1893) 97 Cal. 224, 228, overruled on another ground in People v. Kobrin (1995) 11 Cal.4th 416, 427, fn. 7.)
Jurors must follow the trial court's instructions. (See People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 865, cert. den. sub nom. Daniels v. California (1991) 502 U.S. 846.) Trial courts are not required to instruct jurors that they possess the power to nullify and should not invite them to do so. (People v. Baca, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1707-1708.) The California Supreme Court recently stated that " ury nullification is contrary to our ideal of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law." (People v. Williams, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 463.) In light of this admonition from the California Supreme Court, we are satisfied that CALJIC No. 17.4
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|