Opinion ID: 1351145
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Motion to sequester during the penalty phase

Text: (63) Citing distinguishable, out-of-state authority applying statutory and common law (e.g., Lowery v. State (Ind. 1982) 434 N.E.2d 868), defendant asserts that sequestration of a capital jury should be mandatory throughout the trial, or at least during deliberations, on a defendant's request. There is no basis in our law for this proposition. As noted above, section 1121 leaves sequestration to the sound discretion of the trial court, and requires the court to admonish the jurors if it allows them to separate. This legislative rule, which under California law has long applied with equal force in capital cases (see People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189, 1218 [249 Cal. Rptr. 71, 756 P.2d 795]) must be followed unless it violates the Constitution  a showing defendant does not and cannot make. There being no basis on which to conclude the court abused its discretion, we find no error. ( Id., at pp. 1219-1220.)