Opinion ID: 2621092
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jury Instruction to Exercise Mercy

Text: Defendant requested the trial court to instruct the jury that [i]n determining whether to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without possibility of parole, or to death, you may decide to exercise mercy on behalf of the defendant. He argues that the trial court's refusal to give the instruction deprived him of his Eighth Amendment right to an individualized capital sentencing determination. Not so. We have cautioned that `the jury must ignore emotional responses that are not rooted in the aggravating and mitigating evidence introduced during the penalty phase. [Citation.] The jury may not act on whim or unbridled discretion.' ( People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 164, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 554, 833 P.2d 561.) The unadorned use of the word `mercy' implies an arbitrary or capricious exercise of power rather than reasoned discretion based on particular facts and circumstances. Defendant was not entitled to a pure `mercy' instruction. ( People v. McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1195, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146.) Accordingly, the trial court did not err by refusing the instruction. Moreover, the instruction was cumulative. The trial court instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 8.85, which allows the jury to consider any sympathetic . . . aspect of the defendant's character, or record in connection with the relevant statutory factors. ( People v. Nicolaus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 551, 588-589, 286 Cal.Rptr. 628, 817 P.2d 893.) In closing argument, both defense counsel urged the jury to show sympathy and mercy to defendant. Thus, the trial court adequately instructed the jury.