doing away with the lesser non-included offense instruction because, among other problems, it gave “the defendant a superior trial right to seek and obtain conviction for a lesser uncharged offense whose elements the prosecution has neither pled nor sought to prove”
How later courts described this case
- doing away with the lesser non-included offense instruction because, among other problems, it gave “the defendant a superior trial right to seek and obtain conviction for a lesser uncharged offense whose elements the prosecution has neither pled nor sought to prove”
- accusation that burglary defendant “willfully and unlawfully” entered commercial building with larcenous intent did not necessarily include charge of trespass
- California Supreme Court retreating from its prior allowance of lesser non-included offense instructions following Hopkins
- finding the analysis in Reeves "utterly convincing" and rejecting a charge on lesser-related offenses
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WERDEGAR, J.
I concur in the majority opinion except insofar as it discusses the California constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. The discussion is unnecessary to the court’s holding and, in keeping with the traditional rule that courts refrain from addressing constitutional questions unless required to resolve a given case (see College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 898 , 882 P.2d 894 ]; People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]; People v. Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 393 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 850 , 949 P.2d 947 ] (conc. opn. of Werdegar, J.)), I express no opinion on its correctness.