Opinion ID: 2599073
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: CALJIC 2.60 (instruction on defendant's failure to testify)

Text: Defendant argues the court had a sua sponte duty to reinstruct with CALJIC No. 2.60 at the penalty phase, thereby telling the jury not to draw an adverse inference from the circumstance of his failure to testify at that phase of trial. He suggests that because the jury was also instructed at the penalty phase to disregard the guilt phase instructions (see CALJIC No. 8.84.1), they must have disregarded the instruction admonishing them not to draw an adverse inference from his failure to testify. The claim, however, has been rejected in many of this court's past decisions. (See, e.g., People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 209, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 796, 825 P.2d 781; People v. Morales (1989) 48 Cal.3d 527, 569-570, 257 Cal.Rptr. 64, 770 P.2d 244.) We have no occasion to reconsider those holdings here.