Opinion ID: 2633286
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Miscellaneous Challenges to Jury Instructions

Text: Defendant asserts various other challenges to the jury instructions that we have previously rejected. Defendant raises no basis for reconsideration of those rulings. The trial court may properly refuse as argumentative an instruction that one mitigating factor may be sufficient for the jury to return a verdict of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. ( People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 263-264, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 66 P.3d 1123; People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1068-1069, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388.) [T]here is no requirement, under either state or federal law, that the court specifically instruct the jury to consider any residual doubt of defendant's guilt. ( People v. Sanchez (1995) 12 Cal.4th 1, 77, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 906 P.2d 1129; accord, People v. Lawley, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 166, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614, 38 P.3d 461.) The trial court is not required to instruct the jury that it could consider sympathy and mercy. ( People v. Clark, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 163, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 554, 833 P.2d 561.) The trial court has no duty to identify which factors might be aggravating and which factors might be mitigating. ( People v. Jones (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1084, 1123, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 70 P.3d 359.) The trial court can properly refuse as argumentative an instruction that identifies particular evidence as mitigating. ( People v. Musselwhite, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pp. 1269-1270, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 212, 954 P.2d 475; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 804-806, 276 Cal.Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330.) Defendant claims that we should reconsider some of these rulings in light of Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556, and Apprendi v. New Jersey, supra, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435. Those cases, however, do not affect California's death penalty law. ( People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 642, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 68 P.3d 302.)