Opinion ID: 1375029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Failing to Instruct Jury on Consequences of a Deadlock

Text: (57) The jury was instructed that [i]n order to make a determination as to the penalty, all twelve jurors must agree. Defendant contends that the court's failure to inform the jury sua sponte of the consequence of a deadlock violated the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Under the 1977 death penalty statute, if the jury could not agree on the penalty, the court was required to impose a punishment of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. (Former § 190.4, subd. (b).) People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502 [262 Cal. Rptr. 1, 778 P.2d 129] held that it was not error to refuse to tell the jury, in response to an inquiry about the legal effect of a penalty deadlock, that if a single juror would not vote for death the penalty would be set at life imprisonment under the 1977 version of section 190.4, subdivision (b). The opinion stated, [t]he instruction given  that a penalty verdict must be unanimous  correctly stated the law, and defendant did not complain when the court refused to educate the jury on the legal consequences of a possible deadlock. That refusal was not error. [Citations.] ( Id. at pp. 552-553 (plur. opn.); see also People v. Wader, supra, 5 Cal.4th 610, 664 [construing 1978 law; no duty to instruct jury a deadlock on penalty may occur].) In People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210 [276 Cal. Rptr. 80, 801 P.2d 323], also litigated under the 1977 death penalty statute, the jury asked the court about the effect of a deadlock, and it replied that it would declare a mistrial and dismiss the jury. It did not explain that the defendant would then have been sentenced to imprisonment by operation of law. ( Id. at p. 240.) We rejected a contention that the court had misinformed the jury. As in People v. Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d 502, we explained that it is not required to educate the jury on the legal consequences of a possible deadlock  to do so might tempt a `juror inclined against a finding that death was the appropriate penalty' to exercise `a veto power over the verdict' `simply by refusing to participate in good faith in the deliberations.' ( People v. Haskett, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 240.) Because a court is not required to educate the jury about the legal consequences of a deadlock in response to a request to do so, a fortiori it is not required to do so sua sponte. Citing Mak v. Blodgett (9th Cir.1992) 970 F.2d 614, and Kubat v. Thieret (7th Cir.1989) 867 F.2d 351, defendant urges a contrary conclusion. We decline to rely on those cases. (58) Federal circuit court opinions do not bind us. ( People v. Santamaria, supra, 8 Cal.4th 903, 923.) They may serve as persuasive authority, of course, but only when they are just that  persuasive. Having carefully considered the reasoning of both opinions, we find that neither one is so.