Opinion ID: 1179776
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Guilt Phase Instruction to Disregard Consequences.

Text: (33) Defendant claims the court erred by failing to instruct sua sponte that the penalty jury must not follow the guilt phase instruction to render a just verdict regardless of the consequences (CALJIC No. 1.00). This failure, defendant asserts, diminished the jury's sense of responsibility in determining whether defendant should suffer the death penalty. Defendant therefore asserts violations of his state and federal constitutional rights to due process, a fair jury trial, and a reliable penalty determination. We are not persuaded. As defendant concedes, the jury received a blanket cautionary admonition to [d]isregard all other instructions given to you in other phases of this trial. (Italics added.) Moreover, the jury was specifically instructed that it could consider, in mitigation, [a]ny other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime, even though it may not be a legal excuse for the crime, and any sympathetic or other aspect of the defendant's character or record that the defendant offers as a basis for a sentence less than death, whether or not related to the offense for which he is on trial.  (Italics added.) An addendum was attached to this particular instruction that [y]ou must disregard any jury instructions given to you in the [guilt] or innocence phase [of] this trial which conflicts with this principle. Defendant points to no argument of counsel which sought to exploit the notion that CALJIC No. 1.00 remained applicable at the penalty phase. Under these circumstances, there is no reasonable possibility the jury was misled about the nature and scope of its sentencing task. (See People v. Mayfield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 142, 183 [19 Cal. Rptr.2d 836, 852 P.2d 331].)