How have the courts treated the concept of premeditation and deliberation in a motor vehicle case?

Even if the stop sign example trivialized concepts of premeditation and deliberation, the trial court cushioned that effect through its proper instructions on both. The court instructed the jury pursuant to CALCRIM No. 200, stating, "You must follow the law as I explain it to you . . . . If you believe that the attorneys' comments on the law conflict with my instructions, you must follow my instructions." We are required to presume the jury followed all of the court's instructions, including the instruction that the jury must be guided by what the court said, not what counsel said. (People v. Seumanu, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1336 ["absent some indication to the contrary, we assume a jury will abide by a trial court's admonitions and instructions"].)