Opinion ID: 844248
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Victim Impact Instruction

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte on the proper use of victim impact evidence. He alleges violations of his rights to due process and a reliable penalty determination under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution, and under parallel provisions of the state Constitution. No error occurred. At the penalty phase, the trial court gave standard instructions defining the aggravating and mitigating factors (CALJIC No. 8.85), describing the process of weighing such factors in order to reach an appropriate penalty verdict (CALJIC No. 8.88), and prohibiting jurors from being influenced by bias or prejudice against defendant or swayed by public opinion or public feelings (CALJIC No. 8.84.1). Relying solely on out-of-state cases, defendant insists the trial court should have given an additional instruction on its own motion, as follows: Victim impact evidence is simply another method of informing you about the nature and circumstances of the crime in question. You may consider this evidence in determining an appropriate punishment. However, the law does not deem the life of one victim more valuable than another; rather, victim impact evidence shows that the victim, like the defendant, is a unique individual. Your consideration must be limited to a rational inquiry into the culpability of the defendant, not an emotional response to the evidence. Finally, a victim-impact witness is precluded from expressing an opinion on capital punishment and, therefore, jurors must draw no inference whatsoever by a witness's silence in that regard. However, we have previously considered similar claims regarding a substantially similar instruction, and have concluded that it need not, and should not be given. ( People v. Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th 327, 368-370; accord, People v. Tate (2010) 49 Cal.4th 635, 707-708 [112 Cal.Rptr.3d 156, 234 P.3d 428]; People v. Carrington, supra, 47 Cal.4th 145, 198; People v. Bramit, supra, 46 Cal.4th 1221, 1244-1245.) Several reasons exist. First, to the extent it accurately describes victim impact evidence as a relevant circumstance of the capital crime and allows its consideration in the penalty decision, the proposed instruction would not have provided the jurors with any information they did not otherwise learn from standard penalty instructions properly given by the court. ( People v. Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 369.) Second, the proposed instruction is misleading and incorrect insofar as it suggests that the jury may not consider, or be affected by, sympathy for the murder victim and bereaved family members. ( Ibid. ) Third, the rest of the proposed instruction, advising jurors that the law does not deem one victim's life more valuable than another and cautioning them against drawing any inference from a victim impact witness's silence on capital punishment, is not necessary to the jury's understanding? of the case. ( Id. at p. 370.) We adhere to these principles and authorities, and reject defendant's instructional claim.