Does a jury have a sua sponte duty to provide an additional instruction regarding the role subjective heat of passion in negating the premeditation and deliberation necessary for a first degree murder finding?

Though defendant frames his argument as one regarding the correctness of the instructions given and does not argue that the trial court was obligated to sua sponte provide an additional instruction regarding the role of subjective heat of passion in negating the premeditation and deliberation necessary for a first degree murder finding, in consistently characterizing the error that made the instructions incorrect as a failure to instruct on a specific point of law, he is functionally arguing the court had a sua sponte duty to include a specific additional instruction regarding the role subjective heat of passion in a first degree murder finding. We disagree with defendant and find People v. Jones (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 995 (Jones) dispositive here.

Page 18

"The trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. [Citation.] This sua sponte duty encompasses instructions on lesser included offenses that are supported by the evidence. [Citation.] Additionally, even if the court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on a particular legal point, when it does choose to instruct, it must do so correctly. [Citation.] Once the trial court adequately instructs the jury on the law, it has no duty to give clarifying or amplifying instructions absent a request. [Citation.] [] In reviewing a claim that the court's instructions were incorrect or misleading, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury understood the instructions as asserted by the defendant. [Citation.] We consider the instructions as a whole and assume the jurors are intelligent persons capable of understanding and correlating all the instructions." (People v. Hernandez (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1331-1332 (Hernandez).)