People v. Como

Opinion

HULL, J.

Defendant Joseph Whitney Como appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). On appeal, he contends there was insufficient evidence to support those convictions. He also complains the court erred in denying, without hearing, the second of his three

Marsden

motions.

(People

v.

Marsden

(1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 [84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44]. Finally, defendant contends the trial court committed various instructional errors.

In the published portion of our opinion, we discuss defendant’s claim that CALJIC No. 1.00 improperly instructs a jury “in a way that prohibit[s] jury nullification.” Because jurors are restricted to the determination of factual questions and may not themselves decide what the law is or what it should be, we reject that contention. In the unpublished portion of the opinion we reject defendant’s remaining claims. We affirm the judgment.

Facts and Procedural History

*

Discussion

I, II*

HI

CALJIC No. 1.00 and Jury Nullification

The trial court instructed the jury as follows, using CALJIC No. 1.00:

[1090]

“Members of the Jury, you have heard all of the evidence and the arguments of the attorneys, and now it is my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to the case.

“The law requires that I read the instructions to you.

“You will have these instructions in written form in the jury room to refer to during your deliberations.