Opinion ID: 2515770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Instructions on Penalty Determination

Text: Defendant contends that the standard penalty phase jury instructions given in this case did not provide the jury with an adequate framework for resolving the capital sentencing decision. We have rejected each of the arguments defendant makes in support of this contention. In particular, we have held that the trial court need not instruct the jury that there is a presumption of life ( People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1064, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 988 P.2d 531; People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 190, 51 Cal. Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980); that the prosecution has the burden of persuasion on the issue of penalty ( People v. Kipp, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 381, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 716, 956 P.2d 1169); that the prosecution must prove the existence of particular aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt ( People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1216, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130; People v. Lucero, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 741, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 871, 3 P.3d 248); that the jury must be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate penalty ( People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 859, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 840, 996 P.2d 1152; People v. Kipp, supra, at p. 381, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 716, 956 P.2d 1169); or that the jurors must unanimously agree on the existence of particular aggravating circumstances ( People v. Kipp, supra, at p. 381, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 716, 956 P.2d 1169).