California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Merendon, D074192 (Cal. App. 2019):
Under these circumstances, where the trial court read several instructions that explicitly set forth the mental state or intent required for the charged offense and sentencing enhancement, as well as the concurrence between act and intent or mental state, any purported instructional error was harmless. (See People v. Hayden (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 48, 58 ["Although the 'concurrence of act and intent' instruction should have been given sua sponte, its omission was not prejudicial" because "[o]ther instructions . . . focused on the defendant's intent at the time of the [crime]"].)
Page 39
c. Gang Enhancement Instruction
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.