Opinion ID: 2507905
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proposed Instruction on Work Credits.

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that inmates sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole may not have their sentences reduced for work credits, thus violating his right to due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and a reliable determination of penalty under the Eighth Amendment. We find this contention to be without merit.
While defendant was imprisoned at the Sierra Conservation Center, he worked as an office assistant and reported to Ann Hackett. At trial, Hackett testified about defendant's work ethic. During questioning, the prosecutor asked Hackett, Do inmates get their sentence[s] reduced for working? Defense counsel objected that the issue was irrelevant to the case. The trial court sustained the defense objection before Hackett could answer the question. At a sidebar, defense counsel asked the trial court to remind the jury that a person sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole could not have his sentence reduced for working. The trial court responded that the issue should be dealt with later in the trial when crafting jury instructions. During a discussion of proposed jury instructions, defense counsel renewed his verbal objection, but never offered a written instruction on this issue, even after the trial court asked if proposed written instructions were available. Defense counsel did not prepare written instructions even after the prosecutor verbally proposed to stipulate to instructions that addressed some of defendant's concerns. When the trial court asked for clarification about whether defendant was also objecting to the rejection of the work credit instruction, defense counsel stated, No, I don't mean on that [one]. . . .
Even if defendant properly preserved this issue for appeal, the trial court committed no error. The court sustained defendant's objection to the prosecutor's question suggesting that work credits could reduce a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The prompt action on the part of defense counsel and the trial court was sufficient to dispel any prejudice from the prosecution's unanswered inquiry. ( People v. Bonillas (1989) 48 Cal.3d 757, 795, 257 Cal.Rptr. 895, 771 P.2d 844.) Furthermore, a judge need not include a legally correct jury instruction when it is duplicative of other instructions provided to the jury. ( People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 560, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 751, 905 P.2d 420; see also People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 659, 123 Cal. Rptr.2d 345, 51 P.3d 224.) Here, the judge told the jurors that they should not consider any question as evidence, and should not guess the answers to any questions that were not answered because the judge sustained objections. Moreover, the jurors received a special instruction directing that if they convicted defendant of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, his sentence would be carried out and he would never be eligible for parole. These instructions conveyed the same information as defendant's verbally proposed instruction.