Opinion ID: 1405837
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Instruction to reach penalty verdict regardless of the consequences.

Text: Defendant also urges the trial court erred prejudicially when, as a final instruction at the penalty phase, it admonished the jurors to reach a just verdict ... regardless of ... the consequences.... He claims this instruction prevented the exercise of sympathy and diminished the jury's sense of responsibility. In People v. Brown, supra , we declared that an instruction to act regardless of consequences could contribute to confusion about the jury's sentencing role and should therefore not be given at the penalty phase of a capital trial. (40 Cal.3d at p. 537, fn. 7.) We have since adhered to that statement. (E.g., People v. Hamilton (1988) 46 Cal.3d 123, 152 [249 Cal. Rptr. 320, 756 P.2d 1348]; People v. Howard (1988) 44 Cal.3d 375, 442-443 [243 Cal. Rptr. 842, 749 P.2d 279].) Where the instruction was given in a pre- Brown penalty trial, we review the record to determine whether it may have misled the jury to defendant's prejudice. (E.g., Hamilton, supra, at p. 152; Howard, supra, at p. 443.) In the instant case the court instructed the jury as follows: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the final phase of this case is now in your hands. I urge you to exercise your judgment in this case calmly and fairly without any passion or prejudice or without regard to public opinion or public feelings. [¶] You have now the power of life and death and both sides in this case expect that you will conscientiously consider the evidence and the law and reach a just verdict regardless of what the consequences of your verdict may be. (18) Viewed in context, the instruction can only have been understood to relate to the jurors' duty to render a just verdict without regard to public response. Moreover, as we have explained, the instructions and arguments, viewed as a whole, adequately apprised the jury of its duty to consider all mitigating evidence, and to impose death only if that was deemed the appropriate penalty under all the circumstances. We thus conclude the regardless of consequences instruction could not have misled the jury about its sentencing responsibility.