California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Panah, 107 P.3d 790, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 35 Cal.4th 395 (Cal. 2005):
Next, defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied his request to instruct the jury it could reject the death penalty if it had a "lingering doubt" about his guilt, though the court allowed the defense to argue the point. We have previously rejected this argument on the grounds that such instruction is not necessary because there is no requirement for it under either state or federal law (People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 166, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614, 38 P.3d 461), and the lingering doubt concept is sufficiently encompassed in other instructions ordinarily given in capital cases. (People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1068, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388.) On the same grounds, we reject defendant's claim.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.