Opinion ID: 2633881
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Define Sentence of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on its own motion concerning the meaning of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and thereby caused an unfair, capricious and unreliable penalty determination and prevented the jury from giving effect to the mitigating evidence presented at the penalty phase in violation of the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendant's reliance upon Simmons v. South Carolina (1994) 512 U.S. 154, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 129 L.Ed.2d 133 and other United States Supreme Court cases arising from the State of South Carolina is misplaced. As we previously have explained, juries in California specifically are instructed in capital cases that the choice of penalty is between a sentence of death and one of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and not merely life imprisonmentas the juries were instructed in Simmons and similar cases. ( People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 635-636, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 68 P.3d 302 ( Smith ).) There was no error.