Opinion ID: 1203248
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reference to Commutation Power

Text: (11) Defendant argues that the penalty verdict must be reversed because during sequestered voir dire of three jurors who remained on the jury, questions relating to the Governor's commutation power were asked, in violation of defendant's state and federal constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. Putting aside the fact that it was defendant's counsel who introduced the subject in the case of two of the jurors, and putting aside defendant's failure to object to the jury as constituted or exhaust his peremptory challenges, we find no possibility of prejudice. Although we discourage questions on this subject, as we have said before, when the commutation power is mentioned at voir dire, the jury's attention is not narrowly focused on its duty to select a penalty, and the potential for prejudice is slight. ( People v. Walker (1988) 47 Cal.3d 605, 627 [253 Cal. Rptr. 863, 765 P.2d 70]; People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 769-770 [239 Cal. Rptr. 82, 739 P.2d 1250].) No Briggs Instruction regarding the Governor's commutation power was given and the court properly instructed the jury that questions of counsel are not evidence, and that the jury should be bound by the evidence presented at trial and the instructions of the court. We presume absent contrary indications that the jury was able to follow the court's instructions.