Opinion ID: 2567349
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure to instruct jury regarding defendant's admissions

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred prejudicially under state law and violated federal due process principles in failing to instruct the competency phase jury, on its own motion, with CALJIC No. 2.71, to view his admissions with caution. [3] Acknowledging we have held that trial courts are not required to give this instruction without a request in the penalty phase of trial ( People v. Livaditis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 759, 782-784, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 831 P.2d 297), he observes we have recently reiterated the rule requiring such an instruction, even absent a request, in the guilt phase ( People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1200-1201, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 477, 47 P.3d 262). Defendant argues that a competency trial more resembles a guilt trial than it does a penalty trial, in that  unlike a normative sentencing decision  it results in a binary yes/no determination, in which an affirmative determination of competency is always unfavorable to a defendant. We disagree. Defendant's contrary argument is premised on the false belief a defendant in a competency proceeding has only one interest  to be found incompetent. However, unlike a criminal defendant, whose legal interest lies in being found not guilty whether he is guilty or not, the defendant in a competency proceeding has not only the right not to be tried for a criminal offense when he is incompetent; he has an equally important interest in not being sent to a mental institution with his criminal case unresolved, if he is competent. ( People v. Stanley, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 805-806, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 543, 897 P.2d 481.) Our holding in People v. Livaditis, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pages 782-784, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 831 P.2d 297, recognized that a defendant's statement, admitted during a penalty trial, may be subject to varying interpretations and thus may tend either to mitigate or to aggravate; thus, we concluded, at this phase of trial an obligation to instruct, absent a request, is inappropriate. The same reasoning applies here with equal force. Because juries  and witnesses  may disagree over whether a particular communicative act or statement by a defendant reflects competency or its opposite, an instruction cautioning a jury to view a defendant's admissions, whether direct or adoptive, with caution should be given only on request. Defendant's contention, consequently, lacks merit.