Opinion ID: 2607459
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nature of an Execution

Text: Before the penalty trial began, defendant moved to inform the jury of the nature of an execution through the following means: (1) a jury view of death row and the gas chamber at San Quentin Prison, (2) presentation of an article during closing argument describing an apparent eyewitness account of an execution at the prison, and (3) a special instruction directing the jury to consider the method of execution in determining penalty. The court denied each request. (39) Contrary to what defendant argues, the court's ruling did not offend the federal Constitution (due process and reliable death judgment). Our cases make clear that information about administration of the death penalty does not aid the jury in making an individualized determination of the appropriate penalty in a particular case. ( People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d 152, 218 [jury view of San Quentin]; People v. Grant (1988) 45 Cal.3d 829, 859-860 [248 Cal. Rptr. 444, 755 P.2d 894] [newspaper account of an execution].) Defendant asks us to reexamine these cases, but we decline to do so. [T]he jury was told a judgment of death means exactly that. The defendant will lose his life. Further dramatization makes no useful contribution to the process and serves to distract the jury's attention from the task at hand. ( People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d 152, 218.)