Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
find 'intent to kill'" on the basis <strong>of</strong>other instructions. (RB at p. 181.) Respondent<br />
is wrong for several reasons.<br />
First <strong>of</strong> all, respondent's position contradicts well-established <strong>California</strong><br />
law. This court has frequently held that, on appeal, a jury must be presumed to<br />
have followed the instructions it was given. (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Ca1.4th<br />
1179, 1295; People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Ca1.4 th 577, 596; People v. Hamilton<br />
(2009) 45 Ca1.4 th 863, 957.). However, respondent's argument rests upon the<br />
contrary assumption: namely, that the jury did not follow its instructions. Nothing<br />
in CALnC No. 8.80.1 suggested that the jury should look to other instructions for<br />
additional elements not listed in that instruction. Indeed, had the jury gone outside<br />
8.80.1 and imported into that instruction elements from other instructions, as<br />
respondent contends it must have done, the jury would have clearly violated its<br />
oath to follow the instructions it was given by the court.<br />
Likewise, as noted above (ante, at p. 42), Evidence Code section 664<br />
creates a presumption that an <strong>of</strong>ficial duty has been properly performed, and this<br />
presumption applies to the jury's performance <strong>of</strong>its duties.<br />
Consequently, respondent's position thus has no legal merit and is flatly<br />
contrary to the well-established law <strong>of</strong>this state.<br />
Furthermore, this argument is pure speculation, as there is no evidence to<br />
suggest the jury looked to any other instructions as an aid to interpreting CALnC<br />
No. 8.80.1.<br />
Likewise, none <strong>of</strong> the specific instructions mentioned by respondent this<br />
do, in fact, provide instructions on this missing element <strong>of</strong> intent to kill. For<br />
example, respondent notes that the jury was given instructions pursuant to<br />
CALnC No. 8.22 where the jury was told that a killing by armor-piercing<br />
ammunition is first degree murder. (RB at p. 181, 37CT 10768.) However, this<br />
instruction allows for a conviction <strong>of</strong> first degree murder without a finding <strong>of</strong><br />
intent to kill and thus does nothing to support respondent's position.<br />
61