Opinion ID: 1351145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: Error in giving defendant's requested instruction on deterrence

Text: (73) At defendant's request the court modified former CALJIC No. 8.84.1 by adding factor ( l ), informing the jury it could consider in sentencing [w]hether or not execution as contrasted with life without possibility of parole will deter future acts of murder. He now asserts the court erred to his prejudice in giving his requested instruction. The claim is precluded by the invited error doctrine. ( Wickersham, supra, 32 Cal.3d 307, 330.) Defendant, through his counsel, made a tactical decision to present expert evidence on deterrence, and to request the instruction. In any event, contrary to defendant's assertion, the instruction was not erroneous under Murtishaw, supra, 29 Cal.3d 733, 767-768, which precludes the People from presenting expert evidence of a defendant's future dangerousness. As the People observe, Murtishaw is inapplicable. Here the defense introduced evidence that the death penalty was not a deterrent when compared to life in prison without the possibility of parole, and the instruction merely allowed the jury to consider that evidence.