Opinion ID: 6105748
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction directing the jury to decide which guilt phase instructions applied at the penalty phase

Text: Defendant claims that the court prejudicially erred by failing to specify which of the guilt phase instructions applied at the penalty phase and instead leaving that issue for the jury to decide for itself. We agree that the court erred by failing to provide the jury with the guilt phase instructions applicable to its penalty determination, but conclude that the instructional error was harmless.  1. Background During discussion between court and counsel regarding the penalty phase instructions to be given at the conclusion of evidence, the court expressed the view that it must reread to the jury the guilt phase instructions that apply at the penalty phase. Defense counsel strenuously objected to the court rereading any of the instructions from the guilt phase, or making the original set of instructions available during deliberations. Counsel's primary concern was that the penalty phase instructions  proposed by the defense would be lost and buried in the pile were the court to reread the guilt phase instructions or simply give them to the jury. The court briefly consulted with another judge regarding the guilt phase instructions issue. The court then returned to the courtroom and indicated to the attorneys that it intended not to reread aloud the guilt phase instructions. Instead, the court explained, it would send the packet of instructions into the jury room and advise the jurors that they could consider those instructions they  deemed appropriate and should not consider those instructions they deemed inapplicable to the penalty phase. The prosecutor agreed with that procedure, but defense counsel again objected to the guilt phase instructions being sent into the jury room. The court overruled the objection and announced it would proceed as planned. After the presentation of evidence and closing arguments by the attorneys, the court gave the penalty phase instructions, beginning with the following. Ladies and gentlemen, we've now completed the final arguments of counsel in this, the penalty phase of the trial. It's my duty now to instruct you on the law that will apply to the case. ... [I]n the early guilt or innocence phase of the trial, I instructed you on the law applicable to that phase of the trial. You should consider those prior instructions on the law to the extent that you view them as properly applying to any of the issues present in the penalty phase of the trial. However, you should not consider any of the prior instructions on the law which you find to be inapplicable to the questions and issues now before you in this penalty phase. The court then instructed with the standard penalty phase instructions and the instructions requested by the defense, as modified by the court. In relevant part, the jury was instructed that You will now be instructed as to all of the law that applies to the penalty phase of this trial. ... You must accept and follow the law that I shall state to you. Disregard all other instructions given to you in other phases of this trial except as instructed by this court. (See CALJIC No. 8.84.1.)  2. Discussion Defendant contends that the court erred in directing the jurors to apply the guilt phase instructions they deemed applicable at the penalty phase because it was the court's obligation to specify which of those instructions applied. Defendant asserts that the court's instruction deprived the jury of guidance regarding how to evaluate the penalty phase evidence. As a preliminary matter, we reject the People's argument that defendant invited any error because defense counsel requested that no guilt phase instructions be given to the jury, either orally or in written form. The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a 'conscious and deliberate tactical choice' to 'request' the instruction. ( People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692 , 723, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 , 3 P.3d 248 .) Were defendant to claim here that the court should have reread the applicable guilt phase instructions, we would agree with the People that defendant's contention was barred by the invited error doctrine. (See People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269 , 1319, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 185 P.3d 727 [when counsel argued at length against reinstructing with the guilt phase instructions, defendant's claim on appeal that the court erred by not rereading the guilt phase instructions was barred by the invited error doctrine].) But defendant's claim is that the court erred by leaving it to the jury to decide which of  the guilt phase instructions to apply at the penalty phase. Counsel did not ask the court to have the jury make that determination. Indeed, he specifically objected to having the original set of guilt phase instructions made available for the jury's review during penalty phase deliberations. The court still had a duty to instruct the jury on the 'general principles of law that [were] closely and openly connected to the facts and that [were] necessary for the jury's understanding of the case.'  ( People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1 , 37, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 894 , 117 P.3d 591 .) Regarding the merits of defendant's claim, we agree with defendant that the court erred in directing the jury to decide which of the guilt phase instructions applied at the penalty phase. The People do not argue otherwise. As previously mentioned, the court instructed with CALJIC No. 8.84.1, telling the jury that it must accept and follow the law that I shall state to you and to [d]isregard all other instructions given to you in other phases of this trial except as instructed by the court. We have concluded that if a trial court so instructs a capital jury, it must later provide it  with those instructions applicable to the penalty phase. ( People v. Moon, supra , 37 Cal.4th at p. 37, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 894 , 117 P.3d 591 .) People v. Harris, supra , 43 Cal.4th 1269 , 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 185 P.3d 727 is in accord. The trial court in that case did not reinstruct the jury with the guilt phase instructions but, after  reading CALJIC No. 8.84.1, gave a special instruction directing the jury in relevant part to  'be guided by the previous instructions given in the first phase of this case which are applicable and pertinent to the determination of penalty.'  ( Harris, at p. 1318, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 185 P.3d 727 .) Relying on Moon , this court concluded that the court erred, and urged trial courts to take pains to ensure that penalty phase juries are fully and properly instructed. ( Harris , at p. 1319, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 185 P.3d 727 .) Similarly here, the court's instruction leaving it to the jury to decide which of the guilt phase instructions to apply to its penalty determination, followed by instruction with CALJIC No. 8.84.1, provided no assurance that the jurors were fully and properly instructed. Defendant asserts that, absent certain instructions from the guilt phase such as CALJIC Nos. 2.00 through 2.81, the jury had no adequate standards by which to assess the penalty phase evidence. For example, he argues, absent specific instruction with CALJIC No. 2.20, regarding the believability of a witness, the jury had no basis for determining the truthfulness of the defense witnesses. The record does not disclose which guilt phase instructions, if any, the jury decided to apply to its penalty determination. But even were the court's special instruction to have led to the omission of the applicable guilt phase instructions altogether, we conclude that defendant was not prejudiced because the jury was not prevented from considering defendant's evidence in mitigation. (See People v. Carter, supra , 30 Cal.4th at p. 1221, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 553 , 70 P.3d 981 .) The jury did not need to be instructed on how to consider the defense evidence, such as the testimony of defendant's mother and sister, who described for the jury defendant's difficult background and his generous, loving character, or the testimony of the three other witnesses who testified further regarding defendant's good character and his reputation as an honest and hardworking plumber. None of the witnesses provided lengthy testimony and none was extensively cross-examined by the prosecutor. Notably, there was no testimony by expert witnesses for the jury to  assess: Neither side called a mental health or forensic professional, and the defense presented defendant's social history through family members, rather than through an expert. Furthermore, the evidence from both sides was direct, and neither the prosecution nor the defense presented circumstantial evidence or evidence intended for a limited purpose. In short, the penalty phase evidence was entirely straightforward, and the trial court's failure to reinstruct the jury with any applicable guilt phase instructions was harmless under any standard. ( People v. Moon, supra , 37 Cal.4th at p. 39, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 894 , 117 P.3d 591 .)