Opinion ID: 2507905
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refused Instruction on Deterrence.

Text: Defendant's proposed instruction No. 8, which the judge rejected, stated: In determining whether life imprisonment without possibility of parole, or death, is the appropriate penalty, you may not consider the deterrent or non-deterrent effect of the death penalty. Defendant argues that because only statutory aggravating factors may be considered by the jury during their penalty phase deliberation, and deterrence is not a statutory aggravating factor, then the absence of an instruction informing the jury that they may not consider deterrence constitutes reversible error. We disagree. The trial court characterized this instruction as unnecessary. Deterrence was not an issue at trial, and the jury was presented neither with evidence nor argument by either side on the issue of the deterrent or nondeterrent value of the death penalty. The trial court properly refused the instruction ( People v. Welch, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 765, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203, 976 P.2d 754; People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1066, 64 Cal. Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388), and its absence was non-prejudicial. ( People v. Bacigalupo (1991) 1 Cal.4th 103, 146, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 335, 820 P.2d 559, judg. vacated and cause remanded (1992) 506 U.S. 802, 113 S.Ct. 32, 121 L.Ed.2d 5, reaffd. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 457, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 808, 862 P.2d 808.)