Opinion ID: 1155733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Failure to Reread Guilt Phase Instructions

Text: Following the presentation of the penalty phase evidence, defendant requested a rereading of many of the guilt phase instructions relevant to the penalty determination. The requested instructions included generic instructions governing the jury's consideration and evaluation of the evidence, and covered such matters as direct and circumstantial evidence, admissions and confessions, expert and lay testimony, and accomplice testimony. The court denied the request, advising the jury instead that it should follow the guilt phase instructions except as otherwise directed, and that the court would reread any guilt phase instructions at the jury's request. No such requests were made. (20) Defendant asserts the court erred in denying his request, thereby violating his Eighth Amendment right to a fair and reliable penalty determination. He observes that more than two months had elapsed since the jury had first heard the instructions at issue, and he doubts the jurors had a clear recollection thereof. As our cases uniformly hold, we may presume the jury applied to the penalty determination any applicable guilt phase instructions. (See People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 600 [280 Cal. Rptr. 631, 809 P.2d 290]; People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 460; People v. Williams, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1321.) As stated in Wharton, supra, 53 Cal.3d at page 600, Because none of these instructions was, by its terms, limited to the guilt phase, and because no penalty phase instructions contradicted those instructions, `we believe a reasonable jury would correctly assume those generic instructions continued to apply.' [Citations.] In the absence of anything in the record indicating the jury was confused or misled by the court's failure to reinstruct, we conclude that defendant's argument must be rejected.