California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Rich, 248 Cal.Rptr. 510, 45 Cal.3d 1036, 755 P.2d 960 (Cal. 1988):
Considering the instructions as a whole (People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538-539, 224 Cal.Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251), we find they adequately informed the jury. We note that in addition to the above instructions, the jury was further instructed: "Also, if you find the defendant's [45 Cal.3d 1111] mental capacity was diminished to the extent that you have a reasonable doubt whether he was able to form the mental states constituting either express or implied malice aforethought, you cannot find him guilty of murder of either the first or second degree. [p] If you have a reasonable doubt, one, whether he was able to form an intention unlawfully to kill a human being, or two, whether he was aware of the duty imposed on him not to commit acts which involve the risk of grave injury or death, or three, whether he did act despite that awareness, you cannot find that he harbored express malice. [p] Further, if you have a reasonable doubt, one, whether his acts were done for a base antisocial purpose, or two, whether he was aware of the duty imposed on him not to commit acts which involve the risk of grave injury or death, or three, whether he did act despite that awareness, you cannot find that he harbored implied malice...." (CALJIC No. 8.77, as modified.)
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.