Opinion ID: 2517324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: The Absence of an Instruction Defining Life Without Parole

Text: The jury was given CALJIC No. 8.84, which stated in relevant part: It is the law of this state that the penalty for a defendant found guilty of murder of the first degree shall be death or confinement in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole in any case in which the special circumstance alleged in this case has been specially found to be true. Similarly, CALJIC No. 8.88 informed the jury it was to determine which of the two penalties, death or confinement in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole, shall be imposed on the defendant. Defendant contends these instructions failed to adequately explain the meaning of life without the possibility of parole, as required by Kelly v. South Carolina (2002) 534 U.S. 246 [151 L.Ed.2d 670, 122 S.Ct. 726], Shafer v. South Carolina (2001) 532 U.S. 36 [149 L.Ed.2d 178, 121 S.Ct. 1263], and Simmons v. South Carolina (1994) 512 U.S. 154 [129 L.Ed.2d 133, 114 S.Ct. 2187]. [20] We have rejected this argument many times, noting that the South Carolina instructions were defective because they failed to inform the jury of the defendant's parole eligibility status. (E.g., People v. Martinez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 673, 699 [3 Cal.Rptr.3d 648, 74 P.3d 748]; People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 635-636 [134 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 68 P.3d 302].) The instructions here explicitly informed the jury that there would be no possibility of parole. Defendant claims that during its deliberations, the jury demonstrated confusion over the available sentencing choices by sending a note asking for a definition of Life without the possibility of parole/Death penalty. Before replying, the court inquired whether counsel had discussed the matter to work out an answer acceptable to both sides. The prosecutor responded that they had, and the answer was that the meaning of the terms was exactly what they sound like; that there is no other definition of them. Defense counsel affirmed, that's correct. The court asked, so your proposal is the jury be given no further definition of life without parole or death? Both counsel replied yes. Accordingly, the jurors were called in and the court told them those matters have been defined for you and there's really no need to define them further. They're in the materials that have been given to you and the court's instructions, and there's no need to further define them for you at this point. Defendant complains that the court's answer was essentially ... no response at all, and amounted to ignoring the jury's request for a definition. He has waived this argument by specifically agreeing below to the court's handling of the jury's question. ( People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 437 [20 Cal.Rptr.3d 182, 99 P.3d 505]; see also People v. Martinez, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 698.) In any event, his arguments lack merit. The court told the jury to follow the instructions it had been given on this point, and those instructions are precisely accurate. ( People v. Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 635.) The common meanings of life without the possibility of parole and death penalty are obvious. (See People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 123 [132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271, 65 P.3d 749].) The jury's request, as defendant acknowledges, did not reflect failure to understand what the words meant as much as it demonstrated uncertainty that a life sentence would actually be carried out without defendant being released from prison. It would have been proper for the court to tell the jury `to assume that whatever penalty it selects will be carried out' or to give `a comparable instruction.' ( People v. Snow, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 123, quoting People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 378-379 [75 Cal.Rptr.2d 716, 956 P.2d 1169].) However, defendant did not request such an instruction. Nor was he prejudiced by the procedure to which he agreed. The court informed the jury in so many words to consult the instructions it was given, without looking for further definition. The instructions were plain and accurate. Considered on their own terms, as the jurors were directed to do, they left no room for doubt over defendant's eligibility for parole.