Opinion ID: 1133622
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Applicability of the Guilt Phase Instruction on Mental Disorder

Text: At the guilt phase of the trial, the court instructed the jury that it could consider evidence regarding defendant's mental disease, defect, or disorder solely for the purpose of determining whether or not the defendant actually formed the mental state which is an element of the crime charged. Defendant contends that the court erred in failing expressly to inform the jury that this limitation upon the use of mental state evidence no longer applied at the penalty phase. The effect of the court's omission, according to defendant, was to bar the jury from considering his strongest mitigating evidence in support of a verdict other than death, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court instructed the jury at the beginning and end of the penalty phase of the trial that it must consider, among other things, whether or not the offense was committed when the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, and whether or not at the time of the offense, the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct, or to conform his conduct, as a requirement of law, was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect.... Immediately following the enumeration of factors that must be considered in determining the penalty, the court stated: You must disregard any instruction given to you in the guilt or innocence phase of this trial which conflicts with this principle. Defendant claims that the general admonition to disregard conflicting guilt phase instructions was insufficient to inform the jury that the limitation upon its consideration of mental state evidence no longer applied at the penalty phase. We have rejected similar claims of error based upon the trial court's failure to instruct the jury to disregard particular instructions given at the guilt phase. (E.g., People v. Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 1024-1025, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183 [guilt phase instruction not to be influenced by sympathy]; People v. Kipp, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 379-380, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 716, 956 P.2d 1169 [guilt phase instruction to reach a just verdict regardless of the consequences]; People v. Babbitt, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pp. 717-718, 248 Cal.Rptr. 69, 755 P.2d 253 [guilt phase instructions to disregard sympathy and the consequences of the verdict].) As in the foregoing decisions, the court in the present case did not repeat the inapplicable guilt phase instruction at the penalty phase, the jury properly was instructed to consider the appropriate sentencing factors and to disregard any conflicting guilt phase instructions, and the parties presented evidence and argument regarding those factors. Accordingly, we find no reasonable likelihood the jury was misled by the absence of an instruction to disregard the mental disorder instruction given at the guilt phase.