Opinion ID: 2546413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Give Proposed Jury Instructions

Text: Defendant argues the trial court erred by refusing his three proposed special jury instructions for the penalty phase. We disagree. The first proposed instruction stated that a single mitigating factor could support a sentence of life imprisonment. But the jury was instructed that [i]f any of the mitigating evidence or any aspect of ... this case arouses in you compassion for a defendant you may consider this response in deciding the appropriate penalty to impose in this case. You may, based upon this response alone, reject death as a penalty. (Italics added.) Of course, a trial court has no duty to give duplicative instructions. ( People v. Gurule, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 659, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 51 P.3d 224.) Defendant also proposed an instruction informing the jury that a mitigating factor need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and can be relied on if supported by substantial evidence. Instructions should also be refused if they might confuse the jury. ( People v. Gurule, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 659, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 51 P.3d 224.) As we explained in People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at page 1077, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 5 P.3d 68, the trial court did not err in refusing this potentially misleading instruction because the instruction implies erroneously that aggravating factors must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant's third proposed instruction advised the jury that if it had a reasonable doubt as to the appropriate penalty, it must give defendant the benefit of that doubt and vote for life imprisonment. Courts may refuse instructions that incorrectly state the law ( People v. Gurule, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 659, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 51 P.3d 224), and the trial court properly ruled defendant's third proposed instruction was incorrect because the beyond a reasonable doubt standard does not apply in this context ( People v. Weaver, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 992, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 29 P.3d 103). Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err in refusing defendant's three proposed special penalty phase instructions.