Opinion ID: 2595540
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Refusal to Instruct on Remorse

Text: The court refused the defense request to instruct the jury that [y]ou may not consider lack of remorse as an aggravating factor. Further, you may not consider the defendant's trial testimony in which he denied legal responsibility for the crimes charged as evidence of lack of remorse. Defendant argues the instruction was necessary because there was evidence from which the jury could infer he lacked remorse. We disagree. The jury may consider the circumstances of the crime in aggravation. (§ 190.3, factor (a).) Accordingly, [t]he jury may consider the defendant's refusal to show any remorse in the context of the murder as an aggravating factor. ( People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 449, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78.) Although the prosecution is precluded from arguing that lack of remorse can be found in defendant's claim of innocence ( People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, 243-244, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 426, 821 P.2d 1302; People v. Coleman (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1159, 1169, 80 Cal.Rptr. 920, 459 P.2d 248), or that lack of remorse not related to the crime is an aggravating factor ( People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 186, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150; People v. Proctor (1992) 4 Cal.4th 499, 545, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 340, 842 P.2d 1100), the prosecution did not make these arguments. Thus, the proposed instruction was unnecessary. The standard instructions, which the court gave, were sufficient.