California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hovey, 244 Cal.Rptr. 121, 44 Cal.3d 543, 749 P.2d 776 (Cal. 1988):
We think the trial court's noncommittal response was sufficient, requiring the jury to follow the court's instructions and weigh the evidence without speculating on extraneous matters. In People v. Ramos, supra, 37 Cal.3d at page 159, footnote 12, 207 Cal.Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430, we considered a similar question arising in the context of the 1978 death penalty law, stating that when the jury itself raises the commutation issue during deliberations, "the matter obviously cannot be avoided and is probably best handled by a short statement indicating that the Governor's commutation power applies to both sentences [life without parole and death] but emphasizing that it would be a violation of the juror's duty to consider the possibility of such commutation in determining the appropriate sentence. (Cf. People v. Morse [1964] 60 Cal.2d
Page 146
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.