sua sponte instructional rule in California

2022(Breverman, at pp. 162-163.) This sua sponte instructional requirement “ ‘ “prevents either party, whether by design or inadvertence, from forcing an all-or-nothing choice between conviction of the stated offense on the one hand, or complete acquittal on the other.” ’ ” (People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 29-30 (Brothers).) It protects the jury’s “ ‘truth- ascertainment function’ ” ( Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 199-200) by encouraging a verdict that is neither harsher, nor more lenient, than the evidence merits.

2021Although the prosecution did not charge the sections 246 and 246.3 counts as alternate offenses for the same conduct, the separate instruction on grossly negligent discharge of a firearm, as applied to Mason’s version of the events, precluded an all-or-nothing choice for the jury and satisfied “[t]he purpose of the sua sponte instructional rule which applies to lesser included offenses[, which] is ‘to assure, in the 15 interest of justice, the most accurate possible verdict encompassed by the charge and supported by the evidence.’” (Elize, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 613 , quoting Breverman, s

2013We have recognized that “ ‘the People have no legitimate interest in obtaining a conviction of a greater offense than that established by the evidence, [and] a defendant has no right to an acquittal when that evidence is sufficient to establish a lesser included offense. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 155.) The “broader interests served by the sua sponte instructional rule” are that it avoids “presenting the jury with an ‘unwarranted all-or-nothing choice,’ encourages ‘a verdict ... no harsher or more lenient than the evidence merits’ [citation], and thus protec

2013We have recognized that “ ‘the People have no legitimate interest in obtaining a conviction of a greater offense than that established by the evidence, [and] a defendant has no right to an acquittal when that evidence is sufficient to establish a lesser included offense. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 155.) The “broader interests served by the sua sponte instructional rule” are that it avoids “presenting the jury with an ‘unwarranted all-or-nothing choice,’ encourages ‘a verdict ... no harsher or more lenient than the evidence merits’ [citation], and thus protec

2022(Brothers, supra, at p. 30.) On appeal, we independently review the question of whether the trial court improperly failed to instruct on a lesser included offense, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.

2022(Breverman, at pp. 162-163.) This sua sponte instructional requirement “ ‘ “prevents either party, whether by design or inadvertence, from forcing an all-or-nothing choice between conviction of the stated offense on the one hand, or complete acquittal on the other.” ’ ” (People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 29-30 (Brothers).) It protects the jury’s “ ‘truth- ascertainment function’ ” ( Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 199-200) by encouraging a verdict that is neither harsher, nor more lenient, than the evidence merits.

2021Although the prosecution did not charge the sections 246 and 246.3 counts as alternate offenses for the same conduct, the separate instruction on grossly negligent discharge of a firearm, as applied to Mason’s version of the events, precluded an all-or-nothing choice for the jury and satisfied “[t]he purpose of the sua sponte instructional rule which applies to lesser included offenses[, which] is ‘to assure, in the 15 interest of justice, the most accurate possible verdict encompassed by the charge and supported by the evidence.’” (Elize, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 613 , quoting Breverman, s

1998Martin, supra, 1 Cal.3d 524, 533 .)” ( Sedeno, supra, 10 Cal.3d 703, 715-716 , fn. omitted; see Barton, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 194-198.) Cases have suggested that the requirement of sua sponte instructions arises, among other things, from the defendant’s right under the California Constitution “to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence.” (E.g., People v. Geiger (1984) 35 Cal.3d 510, 519 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , 50 A.L.R.4th 1055 ] (Geiger), overruled on other grounds, Birles, supra, 19 Cal.4th 108 ; see also Wickersham, supra, 32 Cal.3d 307, 335 ;

1998Martin, supra, 1 Cal.3d 524, 533 .)” ( Sedeno, supra, 10 Cal.3d 703, 715-716 , fn. omitted; see Barton, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 194-198.) Cases have suggested that the requirement of sua sponte instructions arises, among other things, from the defendant’s right under the California Constitution “to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence.” (E.g., People v. Geiger (1984) 35 Cal.3d 510, 519 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , 50 A.L.R.4th 1055 ] (Geiger), overruled on other grounds, Birles, supra, 19 Cal.4th 108 ; see also Wickersham, supra, 32 Cal.3d 307, 335 ;

1998Justice Brown implies that we act inconsistently, because in Birks we today overturn the ill-considered rule allowing defendants to demand instructions on lesser related offenses ( Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th 108 , overruling to that extent Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510 ; see also fn. 16, post), but we decline here to reexamine the sua sponte instructional rule for lesser included offenses, a doctrine she deems equally ill-conceived.

1998Martin, supra, 1 Cal.3d 524, 533 .)” ( Sedeno, supra, 10 Cal.3d 703, 715-716 , fn. omitted; see Barton, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 194-198.) Cases have suggested that the requirement of sua sponte instructions arises, among other things, from the defendant’s right under the California Constitution “to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence.” (E.g., People v. Geiger (1984) 35 Cal.3d 510, 519 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , 50 A.L.R.4th 1055 ] (Geiger), overruled on other grounds, Birles, supra, 19 Cal.4th 108 ; see also Wickersham, supra, 32 Cal.3d 307, 335 ;

1998As we have said, insofar as the duty to instruct applies regardless of the parties’ requests or objections, it prevents the “strategy, ignorance, or mistakes” of either party from presenting the jury with an “unwarranted all-or-nothing choice,” encourages “a verdict ... no harsher or more lenient than the evidence merits” (Wickersham, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 324 , italics added), and thus protects the jury’s “truth-ascertainment function” ( Barton, supra, 12 Cal.4th 186, 196 ).

1998Martin, supra, 1 Cal.3d 524, 533 .)” ( Sedeno, supra, 10 Cal.3d 703, 715-716 , fn. omitted; see Barton, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 194-198.) Cases have suggested that the requirement of sua sponte instructions arises, among other things, from the defendant’s right under the California Constitution “to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence.” (E.g., People v. Geiger (1984) 35 Cal.3d 510, 519 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , 50 A.L.R.4th 1055 ] (Geiger), overruled on other grounds, Birles, supra, 19 Cal.4th 108 ; see also Wickersham, supra, 32 Cal.3d 307, 335 ;