PEOPLE v. RICHARD LACY LETNER and CHRISTOPHER ALLAN TOBIN Part VIII
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>PEOPLE v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b<br /> >PEOPLE v.<br /> RICHARD LACY LETNER and</b><br /> <br/><b >CHRISTOPHER ALLAN TOBIN</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/29/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >IN THE SUPREME COURT OF </b><b<br /> >CALIFORNIA</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>THE PEOPLE, )<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/> Plaintiff<br /> and Respondent, )<br /> <br/> ) S015384<br /> <br/> v. )<br /> <br/> ) <br /> <br/>RICHARD LACY LETNER and )<br /> <br/>CHRISTOPHER<br /> ALLAN TOBIN, )<br /> <br/> ) Tulare<br /> County<br /> <br/> Defendants<br /> and Appellants. ) Super.<br /> Ct. No. 26592<br /> <br/>__________________________________ )<u></u><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b >Story continued from part VII…..</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/>In the wake of <i<br /> >Ramos</i>, we have addressed numerous claims<br /> of error arising from the trial court's refusal to give defense-requested jury<br /> instructions that sought to convey to the jury that it should not consider the<br /> possibility that some future event might prevent the fulfillment of the<br /> sentence it imposes. One clear rule that<br /> has emerged from the cases is that, although the trial court generally must<br /> give an instruction when the defendant requests one, the trial court is not<br /> required to do so on its own motion, and of course it should not give an<br /> instruction that is incorrect. (<i<br /> >People v. Gordon</i> (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223,<br /> 1275 [â€