Opinion ID: 1182062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Defendant's Proposed Special Instruction on Mercy

Text: (44) The trial court declined to give defendant's proposed instruction that the jury might exercise mercy in its penalty determination. In refusing the instruction, it observed: (1) the proposed instruction is misleading in that it fails to make reference to statutory factors and implies an unguided or arbitrary discretion in the jury to render a greater or lesser penalty at its whim; and (2) the given instructions focusing on sympathy and compassion in relation to the circumstances more precisely and adequately cover the area. Both observations were apt. The unadorned use of the word mercy implies an arbitrary or capricious exercise of power rather than reasoned discretion based on particular facts and circumstances. Defendant was not entitled to a pure mercy instruction. ( People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 885 [277 Cal. Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906]; People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 808-809; People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal.3d 200, 227-228 [260 Cal. Rptr. 583, 776 P.2d 285].)