Opinion ID: 1199062
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Juror's Inquiry About Automatic Appeal

Text: At the start of the penalty phase trial, before the introduction of evidence and before jury deliberations, Juror V. asked the court three questions. The one at issue here asked: Is there an automatic appeal to a higher court after a death sentence verdict? After discussing the inquiry among themselves, the court and the attorneys for both sides talked to Juror V. outside the presence of the other jurors. Juror V. said that he had not discussed any of his questions with the other jurors. The court told Juror V. that it was not permitted to respond to the question regarding the automatic appeal, adding: You are required to address [the penalty] phase as you did the [guilt] phase, without reference to anything that may transpire later. At that point, Juror V. interrupted the court, saying: Some comments had been made to that effect without discussion. As a matter of fact, some comments had been made to the first question without discussion. The court told the juror, Well if that ever comes up, the question of what happens after the penalty phase is a matter which the jury is simply not allowed to consider. (42) Defendant contends the trial court erred in (1) failing to instruct the entire jury not to consider the availability of appellate review, (2) failing to instruct the jury that the law allows for an appeal from either the guilt or the penalty verdicts, and (3) deputizing Juror V. to explain a question of law to the other jurors. Defendant's contentions are based on the assumption that the jury as a whole, as opposed to a single juror, raised the question of the availability of an automatic appeal. The record, however, supports the trial court's implied finding that it was only Juror V., not the jury as a whole, that had sought clarification of the automatic appeal issue. The question appeared on writing paper with Juror V.'s name. Juror V. informed the court that the question was simply something that had occurred to him, and that he did not discuss the question with the other jurors. Given the circumstances surrounding Juror V.'s inquiry, the trial court was under no duty to give, on its own motion, a cautionary instruction. ( People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 136, 155-159, fn. 12 [207 Cal. Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430].) [16] Also without merit is defendant's claim that the trial court had improperly told Juror V. to disregard the consequences of the penalty verdict. The court did not do so. There is no substantial likelihood that the trial court's admonition to Juror V., before the presentation of evidence and the giving of instructions, to determine penalty without reference to anything that may transpire later could have been understood by Juror V. as ameliorating the responsibility for the life-and-death decision. (See People v. Holloway, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 1109.) Nor did the trial court deputize Juror V. to explain the law to other jurors. The court did not instruct the juror to do so. The court correctly told the juror that the jury could not consider what would happen after the penalty phase.