Opinion ID: 1351466
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inadequacy of the lingering-doubt Instruction

Text: The court instructed the jury that it could consider lingering doubt of defendant's guilt to be a factor in mitigation. [8] (44) The court refused the following lingering-doubt instruction offered by defendant: You have concluded that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You may still demand a greater degree of certainty of guilt for the imposition of the death penalty. There is no requirement, under the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution, to instruct on a higher standard of proof of guilt at the penalty phase of a capital trial. (See Franklin v. Lynaugh (1988) 487 U.S. 164, 172-175 [101 L.Ed.2d 155, 164-167, 108 S.Ct. 2320].) Nor does California law require an instruction such as defendant proposed. As we held in People v. Terry, supra, 61 Cal.2d 137, 147, jurors may consider their doubts concerning defendant's guilt at the penalty phase of the trial. The lingering-doubt instruction given here by the court permitted the jury to consider such doubt as a mitigating factor, and no further instruction was necessary.