How have the courts interpreted sentencing instructions in a death penalty case?

Third, defendant contends the court's sentencing instruction improperly failed to direct the jury to enter a verdict of life imprisonment without parole in the event mitigating circumstances outweighed aggravating ones. Again, [11 Cal.4th 782] we recently rejected this argument, holding that such an admonishment was unnecessary in light of the express instruction that a death verdict could be entered only if aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating ones. (People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 978, 281 Cal.Rptr. 273, 810 P.2d 131.)

Fourth, defendant complains that the sentencing instruction failed to advise the jury that it could choose life imprisonment without parole even if it also found that aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating ones. But defendant was not entitled to such an instruction. (See People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 654-655, 244 Cal.Rptr. 181, 749 P.2d 836.)

Fifth, defendant contends that the court's sentencing instructions improperly failed to require a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating ones, and that the death penalty was appropriate. We have repeatedly rejected the argument. (See, e.g., People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 841 P.2d 118, and cases cited.)

Sixth, defendant contends that the court's sentencing instruction failed to explain which party had the burden of proving that death was an appropriate penalty. But the death penalty law does not provide for any allocation of the burden of proof. Instead,[906 P.2d 55] as the jury is expressly instructed, the penalty is to be determined by a weighing of the applicable sentencing factors. (See People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 643, 276 Cal.Rptr. 874, 802 P.2d 376.)