Opinion ID: 1454621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence Concerning Penalty Execution Method and Wrongful Execution as a Result of Mistake

Text: (48) Defendant asked that the jury be allowed to view San Quentin Prison either in person or by introduction of a videotape to hear an explanation of the method of execution. He also sought to introduce evidence about innocent persons who had been wrongfully convicted and executed. The trial court rejected the offers of proof, but permitted defense counsel to argue to the jury the unreliability of death sentences. Again, there was no error in the court's ruling. At the penalty phase, the jury's attention is properly focused on the circumstances of the offense and the character of the offender, not extraneous information about the manner of execution of sentence. ( People v. Thompson, supra, 45 Cal.3d 86, 138-139; People v. Grant (1988) 45 Cal.3d 829, 860 [248 Cal. Rptr. 444, 755 P.2d 894].) In this case, as in other capital cases, the jury was told a judgment of death means exactly that. The defendant will lose his life. Further dramatization makes no useful contribution to the process and serves to distract the jury's attention from the task at hand. Similarly, defendant's offer of proof seeking to present occasions where persons have been wrongfully executed was also properly rejected. The jury was informed that [t]he adjudication of guilt is not infallible and any lingering doubts you entertain on the question of guilt may be considered by you in determining the appropriate penalty, including the possibility that at some time in the future, facts may come to light which have not yet been discovered. This straightforward instruction allowed the jury to consider any remaining uncertainty as to defendant's guilt. Nothing further was required to secure to defendant a fair trial on the issue of penalty.