People v. Espiritu, 130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 917

Noemi Espíritu testified that defendant entered her home, threatened to kill her, stabbed her multiple times, and choked her; Noemi’s son called 911 during the struggle over the knife.
Defendant testified that Noemi stabbed him first and that they wrestled over the knife, suggesting self-defense for the stabbings.
The information charged burglary, attempted first degree murder with domestic-violence enhancements, and mayhem; counts included weapon-use allegations tied to the knife.
Jury found: not guilty of burglary and attempted murder, guilt on the lesser offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and battery with serious bodily injury; true findings on the domestic-violence GBH allegation and weapon-use allegation were returned.
The jury initially found the weapon-use allegation not true; the court questioned the verdicts, polled the jurors, and sent them back for reconsideration.
After further deliberation, the jury changed its verdict on the “deadly weapon” allegation to true, resolving the inconsistency and proceeding toward sentencing; the court remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court violated § 1161 by not recording the not true finding	Espíritu argues the not true finding must be recorded and cannot be altered by the court.	People contends the court properly sought clarification and permitted reconsideration.	Not true finding must be recorded; court impermissibly controlled verdict.
Whether the trial court coerced or improperly controlled the jury verdict	Court directed reconsideration only on the weapon-use portion, effectively altering the verdict.	Court merely sought to resolve apparent inconsistency and clarify the jurors' intent.	Court effectively controlled verdicts, violating Rodríguez and related authorities.
Whether forfeiture or ineffective assistance applies to the objection	Forfeiture should not bar review given the legal significance of § 1161.	No objection forfeits the claim; counsel’s performance may have been ineffective.	Even with forfeiture, merits require reversal of the weapon-use finding.

People v. Avila, 38 Cal.4th 491 (Cal. 2006) (inconsistent verdicts may be given effect)
People v. Guerra, 176 Cal.App.4th 933 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (inconsistent verdicts may stand if legally permissible)
People v. Blair, 191 Cal.App.3d 832 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) (limits on trial court reconsideration after acquittal)
Bigelow v. Superior Court, 208 Cal.App.3d 1127 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (limits on coercive or improper instruction to juries repealing inconsistent verdicts)
People v. Rodriguez, 42 Cal.3d 730 (Cal. 1986) (trial court may not direct verdict or usurp jury factfinding)
People v. Sturm, 37 Cal.4th 1218 (Cal. 2006) (court comments must be temperate and accurate; cannot direct verdict)