Does a failure to instruct a jury on vehicle tampering result in a reversal of a finding of vehicular burglary?

Even if the evidence justified such an instruction, the error, if any, was harmless. Failure to instruct on a lesser included offense does not require reversal if it can be determined that the factual question posed by the omitted instruction necessarily was resolved adversely to the defendant under other properly given instructions. (People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1056.) By finding defendant guilty of vehicular burglary, the jury found defendant intended to commit theft by breaking into Beal's locked vehicle with the intent to steal either his possessions or the truck itself. (See CALCRIM No. 1700.) In making that determination, the jury necessarily found that defendant did not intend to tamper with Beal's truck. Therefore, it is not reasonably

Page 8

probable the jury would have returned a guilty verdict on vehicle tampering, but not vehicle burglary, if the jury had been instructed on vehicle tampering. It follows that the trial court's omitting a vehicle tampering instruction was harmless. (Id.; People v. Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 177.)