Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial court's failure to instruct jury to commence deliberations anew

Text: Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury, upon substitution of the alternate juror, that it must begin deliberations anew with respect to the guilt and special circumstances findings. The excusal of a juror for good cause and the substitution of an alternate at the penalty phase prior to commencement of deliberations do not require a retrial of the guilt phase or a reweighing of the evidence received at the earlier phase of the proceedings. ( People v. Cain, supra, 10 Cal.4th 1, 66, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 481, 892 P.2d 1224.) As defendant recognizes, the rule announced in People v. Collins (1976) 17 Cal.3d 687, 694, 131 Cal.Rptr. 782, 552 P.2d 742, requiring the trial court to instruct the jurors to commence deliberations anew when a substitution is effected in the midst of deliberations, does not apply when, as in the present case, the alternate juror joins the panel of jurors after the conclusion of the guilt phase and prior to the commencement of deliberations at the penalty phase. ( People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1187-1188, 9 Cal. Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146; People v. Ashmus, supra, 54 Cal.3d 932, 1005, 2 Cal. Rptr.2d 112, 820 P.2d 214; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 460-461, 250 Cal.Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135.) We also have held that a sua sponte instruction on lingering doubt is not required at the penalty phase and, having reviewed the facts of the present case, we ascertain no reason to reach a different conclusion under these circumstances. ( People v. McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1188, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146.)