Opinion ID: 1405837
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Unanimous agreement on aggravating crimes.

Text: (27) Defendant urges the court erred in refusing his proffered instruction that the jurors must unanimously agree on any uncharged criminal activity used as a factor in aggravation. In Ghent, supra, we rejected the contention that the court must give such an instruction sua sponte. (43 Cal.3d at pp. 773-774.) Ghent's jurors, we noted, had been instructed that they must unanimously agree on the penalty determination, and that any uncharged criminal activity must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Any [additional] requirement [of unanimity on each aggravating crime] would immerse the jurors in lengthy and complicated discussions of matters wholly collateral to the penalty determination which confronts them. Moreover, we see nothing improper in permitting each juror individually to decide whether uncharged criminal activity has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and, if so, what weight that activity should be given in deciding the penalty. ( Ibid. ) Similar instructions were given here, and Ghent's reasoning is fully applicable. The court did not err in refusing a unanimity instruction.