California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Johnson, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 593, 6 Cal.4th 1, 859 P.2d 673 (Cal. 1993):
Moreover, in the specific situation here disclosed, the presence of "overwhelming evidence" is completely immaterial. "Under the guidance of Yates, we may no longer consider the strength of the evidence and determine whether it is so clear that the jury would have found the element to exist had it been properly instructed...." (United States v. Gaudin, supra, 997 F.2d at p. 1272, italics in original.) This is because "when an element ... is removed from jury consideration, that error cannot be harmless." (Ibid.) Contrary to the majority's implication, it matters not that the intent-to-kill element of the offense of first degree willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder--which is not at issue--was not removed. The fact is, the intent-to-kill element of the multiple-murder special circumstance--which is at issue-- was.
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.