How have the courts interpreted sentencing instructions in a murder case?

Defendant claims that above italicized words rendered the instruction vague, misleading and constitutionally defective. However, if defendant believed the instruction [885 P.2d 79] was unclear, he had the obligation to request clarifying language. (See People v. Johnson,

Page 313

Defendant next claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct that even if no evidence in mitigation was found, or if the circumstances in aggravation were found to outweigh those in mitigation, the jury nevertheless had discretion to impose life without parole if it determined that such a sentence was the appropriate penalty under all of the circumstances. (See People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 979, 281 Cal.Rptr. 273, 810 P.2d 131 [jury may determine "even in the absence of mitigating evidence" that the aggravating evidence is insubstantial].) In particular, defendant complains that the instructions given in this case were inadequate and led to a constitutionally flawed result because: (1) their wording required that there be some evidence in mitigation as a prerequisite for imposing a sentence less than death; and (2) they presupposed that such evidence was introduced at the penalty phase. We disagree.