Anderson

A jury convicted defendant of first degree robbery and he appealed. Some of defendant’s contentions clearly have no merit, while others might possibly be well taken, had a proper objection been made in the trial court. The briefs also discuss certain issues with respect to the admissibility of statements made by defendant which, upon a retrial, will presumably be resolved in the light of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 [ 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ], decided June 13, 1966, Other issues mooted will probably not arise again. These problems need not detain us because of certain matters which arose in connection with the court’s instructions to the jury, not raised by defendant, but which the Attorney General very properly suggests “merit some attention.’’ We must go even further and find that the situation requires a reversal, the error being so fundamental that we cannot ignore it. (People v. Steele, 237 Cal.App.2d 182 [46 Cal.Rptr. 704]; People v. Ross, 198 Cal.App.2d 723, 730 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 307 ].)

A very brief statement of the evidence will suffice. A person whom the victim, Mrs. May Cook, a 68-year-old lady, identified as defendant entered her store for the ostensible…