People v. Hicks, 196 Cal. Rptr. 3d 638

Defendant Marvin Travon Hicks was retried for second degree murder arising from a vehicular death after a first trial in which he was convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter but the jury deadlocked on murder.
At the second trial the prosecution pursued only the murder charge; the defense requested the jury be informed that defendant had been convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter at the first trial.
The trial court denied the request, instructed counsel not to argue that an acquittal on murder would leave defendant unpunished, and limited argument to evidence and the murder instruction.
Defendant relied on People v. Batchelor, arguing jurors should know a lesser-related conviction so they would not think defendant would go free if they acquitted on murder.
The Court of Appeal distinguished Batchelor, held prior-trial convictions are irrelevant to the issues at the second trial and that advising the jury could confuse or prejudice them; any error would be harmless because the evidence of murder was overwhelming.

Issue	People’s Argument	Hicks’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to inform the second-jury that Hicks had been convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter in the first trial	Prior conviction from the first trial is irrelevant, would confuse jury, and discussing punishment is improper	Batchelor requires advising the jury of the prior lesser-related conviction so jurors won’t think defendant would go unpunished if they acquit of murder	No error; trial court properly excluded that advisement; even if error, it was harmless given overwhelming evidence of murder

People v. Batchelor, 229 Cal.App.4th 1102 (discussed rule that advising jury of prior lesser-related conviction may be required under unusual circumstances)
People v. Edwards, 54 Cal.3d 787 (trial court not required to inform jury of history of prior proceedings)
People v. Birks, 19 Cal.4th 108 (court not required to instruct on lesser-related offenses)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (harmless error standard for more favorable outcome reasonably probable)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard)