Opinion ID: 2636899
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denying jury view of Life Without Possibility of Parole incarceration.

Text: During a penalty phase discussion between the court and counsel regarding the anticipated duration of further proceedings, necessitated by concerns expressed by several jurors and alternates regarding their future commitments, the court stated that, if a written motion for a prison visit was to be made, the defense would have real problems with that with this judge. You've had months to think about that. You've had months to prepare. No request, written or oral, for the jury to view the conditions in which appellant would be confined if sentenced to life without the possibility of parole was made. Appellant characterizes the court's comment as a refusal to entertain a motion. It was not. The court expected, not unreasonably, that if such a motion were to be made counsel should be prepared to explain their delay and to justify any disruption of the trial schedule on which they had attempted to agree. Even had there been such a motion, a capital defendant has no right to insist on a jury view of either the execution chamber or the conditions under which a term of life without possibility of parole would be served. Evidence of the conditions of confinement is irrelevant to a capital sentencing scheme and thus, refusing to permit such a view does not deny a capital defendant any constitutional right. ( People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 713, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640; People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 499, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373.)