Opinion ID: 2639482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Jury Instructions on Consideration op Penalty

Text: Defendant also objects to CALJIC Nos. 8.83.2 and 17.42. The former instructs the jury: In your deliberations the subject of penalty or punishment is not to be discussed or considered by you. The latter similarly instructs: In your deliberations do not discuss or consider the subject of penalty or punishment. That subject must not in any way affect your verdict. [3] Both of these instructions were requested by the defense. This issue is similar to the preceding issue. It is clear that the jury can consider the difference between the potential penalties faced and the actual penalties received by accomplices in assessing their credibility. In light of the instructions given and arguments presented, a reasonable juror would recognize that instructions barring discussion of punishment which serve the obvious purpose of preventing discussion of a defendant's punishment at the guilt phase of the trial (see, e.g., People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 319, 261 Cal.Rptr. 348, 777 P.2d 121)do not prohibit a juror from considering the punishment the accomplices faced and what they actually received in assessing the credibility of their testimony. (See People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 446, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610.)