Vital

People v. Vital

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 442·45 Cal. App. 4th 441·52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 676·96 Daily Journal DAR 5511·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3400
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 1996B089440California1,087 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

David Anthony Vital was charged with one count of attempted first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187), one count of torture (§ 206) and one count of aggravated mayhem (§ 205). A jury found him guilty of one count of attempted manslaughter, one count of torture, as charged, and one count of mayhem.* *

Facts

Defense*

Discussion

I

Vital contends the jury was not instructed on all the essential elements of torture.

Section 206 states in part, “Every person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury . . . upon the person of another, is guilty of torture.”

The court gave the jury CALJIC No. 9.90, which defines torture in the same terms as section 206. The instruction was approved in People v. Barrera (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1555, 1571-1572 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 395 ]. Nevertheless, Vital claims the jury should have been instructed that the intent to cause pain must be premeditated, and that the pain must not only be extreme but also prolonged. Vital relies on People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal.3d 539 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 546 P.2d 665 , 83 A.L.R.3d…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.