Opinion ID: 2600307
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Instruction on Appropriate Use of Victim Impact Evidence

Text: Defendant does not challenge the admission of the victim impact testimony that included the various ways in which Wong's mother, father, and brother were adversely affected by losing her from their family. Defendant contends the trial court was required to give a sua sponte limiting instruction on how the jury should approach victim impact evidence presented at the penalty phase in order to ensure that emotion would [not] overcome the jurors' reason, preventing them from making a rational penalty decision.... We disagree. The instructions the trial court gave, which included CALJIC No. 8.84.1, were sufficient to inform the jury of its responsibilities, and the proposed instruction by the defense would not have provided the jury with any information it had not otherwise learned from CALJIC No. 8.84.1. ( People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 455, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78.)