The opinion
McCOMB, J.
I dissent.
The record in the instant case fails to disclose that defendant requested any instructions to the jury, and there has not been prepared and presented to this court a copy of any oral instructions given by the trial judge to the jury.
Where the instructions given or refused do not constitute part of the record, an appellate court will assume that correct instructions were given to the jury. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1963, subd. 15; People v. Corenevsky, 124 Cal.App.2d 19, 24 [10] [ 267 P.2d 1048 ]; People v. Jackson, 88 Cal.App.2d 747, 750 [3] [ 199 P.2d 322 ] ; 4 Cal.Jur.2d (1952) Appeal and Error, § 589, p. 466; cf. In re Patterson, 58 Cal.2d 848, 853 [7] [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 10 , 377 P.2d 74 ].)
Accordingly, in addition to the evidence set forth by Mr. Justice Agee in the opinion prepared by him for the District Court of Appeal (People v. Haven (Cal.App.) 26 Cal.Rptr. 650 ), it must be assumed that the trial court fully and fairly instructed the jury on all material issues presented to it and that such instructions followed the law. It must also be presumed that the jury,'—-in light of all the evidence adduced at the trial, as limited by the court’s instructions,— determined the ultimate questions of fact defined by the instructions as to whether defendant voluntarily accompanied the police officers to his hotel room and voluntarily permitted them to search it.
It must further be assumed that the jury fairly and impartially weighed the evidence pursuant to the presumptively comprehensive and valid instructions and found substantial support for the material findings of fact upon which the ultimate admissibility of the evidence and all issues upon which the judgment of guilty was predicated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1963, subd. 15; People v. Tarantino, 45 Cal.2d 590, 597 [7] [ 290 P.2d 505 ] ; People v. Sutic, 41 Cal.2d 483, 494 [9] [ 261 P.2d 241 ].)
I would therefore affirm the judgment.
Sehauer, J., concurred.