Opinion ID: 1316209
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lack of Instruction on Cosby's Sentence

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte as to the sentence received by Cosby in a separate trial based on his participation in the Aztec crime. (See ante, fn. 4.) Defendant suggests he was deprived of any mitigating inferences that could be drawn from such information in violation of his federal constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and a reliable penalty determination, and in violation of analogous state constitutional guarantees. The claim is barred at the threshold. Before trial, the prosecutor moved orally and in writing to prevent any reference to Cosby's sentence at both the guilt and penalty phases. The prosecutor argued that such information was irrelevant and inadmissible under applicable case law, as set forth post. At the hearing on the motion, defense counsel conceded that Cosby's sentence should be excluded for the reasons urged by the prosecutor. In other words, defendant now criticizes the trial court for withholding information defendant agreed the jury should not hear, and for presumably relying on such agreement in fashioning its instructions. Under the circumstances, defendant is estopped from complaining about the lack of instruction concerning Cosby's sentence at the penalty phase. (See People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1031-1032, 264 Cal.Rptr. 386, 782 P.2d 627 [acknowledging general principle that appellants are foreclosed from challenging errors they induced or circumstances they created during a capital trial].) In any event, no error occurred. The sentence received by an accomplice is not constitutionally or statutorily relevant as a factor in mitigation. Such information does not bear on the circumstances of the capital crime or on the defendant's own character and record. [T]he fact that a different jury under different evidence, found that a different defendant should not be put to death is no more relevant than a finding that such a defendant should be sentenced to death. Such evidence provides nothing more than incomplete, extraneous, and confusing information to a jury, which is then left to speculate [on the matter]. ( People v. Dyer (1988) 45 Cal.3d 26, 70, 246 Cal.Rptr. 209, 753 P.2d 1, fn. omitted.) For this reason, we have repeatedly rejected the claim that the penalty jury must be instructed in the manner urged by defendant here. ( People v. Bines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1068, 64 Cal. Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388; People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1244, 56 Cal. Rptr.2d 49, 920 P.2d 1254; People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1188, 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1; People v. DeSantis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1198, 1251, 9 Cal. Rptr.2d 628, 831 P.2d 1210; People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 225, 279 Cal. Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949; People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1249, 255 Cal.Rptr. 569, 767 P.2d 1047; People v. Malone, supra, 47 Cal.3d 1, 53-54, 252 Cal.Rptr. 525, 762 P.2d 1249.) Defendant suggests this line of authority must be reconsidered in light of Parker v. Dugger (1991) 498 U.S. 308, 111 S.Ct. 731, 112 L.Ed.2d 812. Not so. As we have explained in prior cases, Parker did not hold that information about an accomplice's sentence must be introduced in mitigation, or that a comparison of sentences meted out for the capital crime is necessary. The Parker court merely concluded a Florida trial judge, in sentencing the defendant to death, had in fact considered the nonstatutory mitigating evidence of the accomplice's sentence, as under Florida law he was entitled to do. ( Parker, supra, 498 U.S. at pp. 314-315, 111 S.Ct. 731.) Parker does not state or imply the Florida rule is constitutionally required, and California law is to the contrary. ( People v. Cain, supra, 10 Cal.4th 1, 63, 40 Cal. Rptr.2d 481, 892 P.2d 1224; accord, People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1188-1189, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1; People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 479-480, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388.)