Opinion ID: 2601957
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Lack of Instruction to View Defendant's Admissions with Caution

Text: As noted above, police officers testified that defendant made several statements following his arrest that indicated his knowledge of details of the crime, including that the victim was a police officer and the murder weapon was a shotgun. Defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte to view defendant's out-of-court admissions with caution. (11) `When evidence is admitted establishing that the defendant made oral admissions, the trial court ordinarily has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that such evidence must be viewed with caution. [Citation.]' ( People v. Williams (2008) 43 Cal.4th 584, 639 [75 Cal.Rptr.3d 691, 181 P.3d 1035].) But this general rule does not apply in the penalty phase of a capital trial. We held in People v. Livaditis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 759, 783 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 831 P.2d 297], that the court is required to give the cautionary instruction at the penalty phase only upon defense request, explaining that because guilt is already established at the penalty phase, [t]he only relevance of the defendant's extrajudicial statements is as either aggravating or mitigating evidence. . . and [w]hether a particular statement is aggravating or mitigating is often open to interpretation. Defendant argues that our decision in Livaditis should be distinguished because the statements in the present case, unlike those at issue in Livaditis, were solely inculpatory. We never have so limited the rule we announced in Livaditis. ( People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1220 [135 Cal.Rptr.2d 553, 70 P.3d 981] [`because capital sentencing is a moral and normative process, it is not necessary to give instructions associated with the usual factfinding process']; People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1201 [120 Cal.Rptr.2d 477, 47 P.3d 262]; see People v. Dunkle (2005) 36 Cal.4th 861, 898 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 23, 116 P.3d 494] [no sua sponte duty to instruct competency phase jury].) Because defendant did not request a jury instruction to view his admissions with caution, there was no error.