Opinion ID: 2544661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Request for Written Penalty Instructions

Text: On March 4, 1991, after both parties had presented evidence at the penalty phase, the trial court orally instructed the jury regarding the penalty determination. The court told the jurors that these instructions would be made available to them in written form for their deliberations, and it cautioned them regarding the proper use and consideration of written instructions. The jury began its deliberations immediately after receiving the oral instructions. The appellate record contains a note signed by the jury foreperson and dated March 4, 1991, requesting the jury instructions. The clerk's minutes for that date do not mention the note. The reporter's transcript does not record any discussion of the note by the court or counsel, but the clerk's transcript includes a packet of written jury instructions with a cover sheet stating Instructions given and delivered to jury during deliberations. The cover sheet has a file stamp with a date of March 11, 1991, the day on which the jury returned its penalty verdict. Based on these facts, defendant contends that the trial court violated his statutory and constitutional rights to have his trial counsel told of the jury's request for written instructions. We disagree. Because the trial court during its oral instructions had already announced its intention to give the jury written copies of the penalty instructions, the trial court did not violate any statutory or constitutional right of defendant's when it responded to the jury's note by sending the jury the written instructions without further notice to counsel. Defense counsel had an opportunity to object to the procedure, to review the written copies of the instructions, or to make any suggestions concerning the jury's consideration of the instructions. From the record's silence, we infer that counsel had no objection to the proposed procedure. The jury retired to deliberate at 3:28 p.m. on March 4, 1991, and before the daily recess at 4:50 p.m. on that day the jury foreperson sent a note asking for the written instructions. We infer from the record that the packet of instructions was then given to the jurors, as reflected by the notation on the cover sheet. Defendant relies primarily on People v. Dagnino (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 981, 146 Cal.Rptr. 129, but that case is distinguishable because there the trial court provided the jury with written copies of all instructions without informing trial counsel or permitting any response. Here, by contrast, trial counsel received notice and had an opportunity to respond.