Opinion ID: 2633651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Failure to specify applicable instructions

Text: At the guilt phase, the trial court instructed the jury on general principles applicable to the evaluation of evidence. Defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to reinstruct on these principles at the penalty phase or, at a minimum, to tell the jury which guilt phase instructions were applicable at the penalty phase. He contends this error deprived him of his right to a reliable penalty verdict under the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution. We have held the trial court is not required to reinstruct on general principles at the penalty phase when the guilt phase instructions were not limited to use at the guilt phase and none of the penalty phase instructions contradict the guilt phase instructions. ( People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 112, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 507, 105 P.3d 1099; People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 561, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 751, 905 P.2d 420; People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 73-74, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 841 P.2d 118.) Here, at the penalty phase the jury was told to disregard only those guilt phase instructions that conflicted with the principles outlined in CALJIC No. 8.84.1, factor (k), and nothing in the parties' arguments or in the other instructions suggested that the general principles outlined at the guilt phase would not apply at the penalty phase. No error appears. [35] Defendant contends the guilt phase instructions on witness credibility were incomplete. In giving CALJIC No. 2.20, the trial court deleted the final three factors: character or reputation for untruthfulness, prior admissions of lying, and prior felony convictions. Defendant argues these factors were crucial in evaluating the credibility of Martinez and Butler; therefore he was prejudiced when the trial court failed to reinstruct pursuant to the full CALJIC No. 2.20 at the penalty phase. We conclude any error was harmless. There was no evidence of the first two factors  character or reputation for untruthfulness, or a prior admission of untruthfulness  regarding Butler or Martinez. And although the jury never was instructed to consider prior felony convictions in evaluating credibility, both women were examined and cross-examined on their criminal histories and their possible motives for testifying against defendant. There is no reasonable possibility the outcome of the penalty phase would have differed had the jury been instructed expressly to consider felony convictions in evaluating credibility. No prejudicial error appears.