Opinion ID: 1375029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Denying Motion to Give Lingering Doubt Instruction

Text: While discussing possible instructions with the prosecution and the court, defendant moved for an instruction on lingering doubt regarding his guilt as a factor in mitigation. The prosecutor objected on the ground that it was unfair to request the instruction so late in the proceeding. The court, without explanation, denied the request. (59) Defendant contends that the court violated rights he finds in state law (see People v. Terry (1964) 61 Cal.2d 137, 145-147 [37 Cal. Rptr. 605, 390 P.2d 381]) and in the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments when it denied his motion. We have held that neither the federal nor the state Constitution entitles a defendant to an instruction on lingering doubt. ( People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1251-1252 [14 Cal. Rptr.2d 702, 842 P.2d 1].) But [t]his is not to say that the jury's consideration of any such doubt is improper; defendant may urge his possible innocence to the jury as a factor in mitigation. ( Id. at p. 1252.) An instruction of the type given here ( ante, p. 881), derived from factor (k) of section 190.3, adequately supports a defendant's presentation of evidence or argument that lingering doubt militates against a verdict of death. ( People v. Johnson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 1251, 1252.) There was no error.