Opinion ID: 1372628
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect of Guilt Phase Instructions on Malice and Intent.

Text: (23) Defendant contends that the giving of instructions at the guilt phase on malice and intent might have led the jury to believe it could not consider mental disturbance at the penalty phase. This contention is unpersuasive. The jury was told at the penalty phase that it could consider in mitigation any extreme emotional or mental disturbances it found, and moreover was told to consider, if applicable, any other circumstance that might extenuate the crimes' gravity. Given the penalty defense's focus on defendant's medical and emotional problems, we are not persuaded there is any reasonable likelihood ( People v. Clair, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 663) that the jury would import these guilt phase instructions for the limiting purpose defendant suggests in light of the penalty phase instruction.