Opinion ID: 2507905
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Refused Instruction on Double-counting.

Text: The trial court refused to give defendant's proposed instruction No. 10, which stated: In determining circumstances in aggravation, you should not double count any circumstances of the crime which are also special circumstances. Instead, the court gave CALJIC No. 8.85 to the jury, stating that in determining penalty, the jury should consider, (a) The circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding and the existence of any circumstances found to be true. Defendant contends rejection of the proposed instruction was erroneous. We already have determined that CALJIC No. 8.85 does not imply that the jury may double count evidence. ( People v. Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 805, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485.) Even assuming that the judge should have given defendant's proposed instruction, his failure to do so was harmless. (See People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 768-769, 244 Cal.Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741.) Not only did the prosecutor argue this issue in a non-misleading manner, [15] but as a matter of common sense, [the jury] was unlikely to believe it should `weigh' each special circumstance twice on the penalty `scale.' ( Id. at p. 769, 244 Cal.Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741.) Thus, the judge did not commit reversible error by failing to give the defendant's proposed instruction.