Opinion ID: 2636899
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Refusal to give instructions on standard of proof, burden of persuasion, unanimous agreement.

Text: At the close of the penalty phase evidence, appellant made a formal motion for an instruction that the jury may impose the death penalty only if persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances, and that the imposition of the death penalty is justified and appropriate in the circumstances of this case and that reasonable doubt is present when you are not firmly and without hesitation convinced that death is the justified and appropriate punishment. Appellant contends that we should join other states that have concluded a capital jury may not return a death verdict unless the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors and/or that death is the appropriate penalty. He also contends that an instruction must be given to articulate the standard of proof to be applied in the penalty phase. We have repeatedly declined to require either instruction. Neither is statutorily or constitutionally required. ( People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 899, 85 Cal. Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15; People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 709-710, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640; People v. Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 782, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2; People v. Cudjo, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 634, 25 Cal. Rptr.2d 390, 863 P.2d 635.)