Opinion ID: 1129438
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure to Reinstruct Regarding Defendant's Failure to Testify

Text: (37) Defendant elected not to testify at either the guilt or penalty phase. At the guilt phase, the jury was instructed not to draw adverse inferences from defendant's failure to testify, but the jury was not reinstructed on that subject at the conclusion of the penalty phase. Defendant asserts the omission constituted reversible error. Defendant did not request that the jury be reinstructed, and he cites no cases requiring sua sponte reinstruction. The People note that there is no sua sponte duty to give a no adverse inferences instruction of the kind involved here, either at the guilt phase ( People v. Preston (1973) 9 Cal.3d 308, 316 [107 Cal. Rptr. 300, 508 P.2d 300]; People v. Gardner (1969) 71 Cal.2d 843, 852-854 [79 Cal. Rptr. 743, 457 P.2d 575]), or the penalty phase ( People v. Gates, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1208). But these cases do not discuss whether an obligation to reinstruct exists once a guilt phase instruction has been given. It is evident, however, that defense counsel reasonably could decide, as a tactical matter, not to remind the jury of defendant's failure to testify in his defense. As Gardner observes, it is debatable whether the foregoing instruction is to defendant's advantage. ( Id., at p. 854.) Moreover, as previously noted, a reasonable jury would assume the instruction continued to apply at the penalty phase. (See People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 460.) Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court had no sua sponte duty to reinstruct as to defendant's failure to testify.