People v. Gallardo CA4/3

DISCUSSION

Defendant claims the court erred by providing jury instructions that essentially relieved the prosecution of its burden to prove the murder was motivated by financial gain. According to defendant, the error was prejudicial and violated his constitutional rights to due process and a jury trial. Defendant also argues the court improperly imposed a $300 parole revocation fine. For the reasons below, we agree the court erred by imposing the parole revocation fine but disagree with defendant’s remaining contentions. I.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING THE FINANCIAL GAIN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE

A. Relevant Background Two jury instructions are central to the instant appeal: CALCRIM Nos. 370 and 720. As given to the jury, CALCRIM No. 370 stated: “The People are not required to prove that the defendant had a motive to commit the crime charged. In reaching your verdict you may, however, consider whether the defendant had a motive. [¶] Having a motive may be a factor tending to show that the defendant is guilty or a special circumstance is true. Not having a motive may be a factor tending to show the defendant is not guilty or a special circumstance is not true.” (Italics added.) The…