What should the jury have been instructed not to draw any adverse inference from the fact that defendant did not testify at the penalty phase?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Navarette, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 30 Cal.4th 458, 66 P.3d 1182 (Cal. 2003):

Defendant argues the trial court should have instructed the jury sua sponte not to draw any adverse inference from the fact that defendant did not testify. Defendant points out that the court gave an instruction of this kind at the guilt phase, but it instructed the jury at the penalty phase to disregard guilt phase instructions. On this basis, defendant asserts the jury may have thought it was appropriate at the penalty phase to draw an adverse inference from defendant's failure to testify. We have repeatedly rejected similar contentions (see, e.g., People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 687, 63 Cal. Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213), and do so again here. Defense counsel may have a tactical reason for not wanting the instruction defendant proposes?particularly at the penalty phase?and the court does not err in failing to give the instruction sua sponte.

Defendant argues the trial court should have instructed the jury that it had to reach a unanimous agreement as to the existence of a particular aggravating factor before it could take that aggravating factor into consideration. We have held that this instruction is not necessary in light of other instructions that ensure reliability of the death verdict. (See, e.g., Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 275, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 66 P.3d 1123; People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 641-642, 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 528, 2 P.3d 1081.)

Defendant asserts error based on the trial court's refusal to give his requested instruction that "[l]ife without the possibility of parole means life without the possibility of parole." We have repeatedly rejected a similar contention (see, e.g., People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 886-887, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 905 P.2d 1305), and do so again here. Among other things, the proposed instruction is confusing because its internal circularity might have caused the jury to speculate that other instructions do not mean what they say.

Other Questions


Is a defendant's failure to testify at the penalty phase an error not to instruct the jury to refrain from drawing any inference from the fact that defendant did not testify at penalty phase? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant have grounds to argue that a trial court prejudicially errs in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte at the penalty phase to disregard the no-sympathy instruction at the guilt phase? (California, United States of America)
When will a court grant a defendant an instruction that cautions the jury that it may not draw an adverse inference from the fact that a defendant has not testified at trial? (California, United States of America)
In a penalty case, in what circumstances will the court allow the jury to instruct the jury on a defendant's failure to testify in the penalty phase? (California, United States of America)
Does section 190.3 of the California Criminal Code require a penalty phase jury to consider a defendant's unadjudicated criminal activity as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant entitled to additional instructions in the penalty phase of a criminal case where he and his accomplice testify against him? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant's right to be free of adverse inferences from his failure to testify in a flight instruction? (California, United States of America)
In a penalty retrial of a convicted murderer, what is the effect of a hung jury at the penalty phase of his penalty trial? (California, United States of America)
When will a defendant appeal against a finding that a jury's instruction to exclude victim impact evidence from the penalty phase was incorrect? (California, United States of America)
Does not offend equal protection principles by failing to provide capital defendants with the same procedural safeguards as non-capital defendants at the penalty phase? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.