Opinion ID: 1184860
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The refusal of instructions requested by defendant

Text: [9a] Defendant asserts that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to issue instructions based on language of People v. Friend (1957) 47 Cal.2d 749, 767-768 [306 P.2d 463]: [I]n deciding the question whether the accused should be put to death or sentenced to imprisonment for life, it is within their (the jury's) discretion alone to determine, each for himself, how far he will accord weight to the considerations of the several objectives of punishment [enumerated] ... or of sympathy or clemency, of age, sex, human passions, ignorance or weakness, of the presumptions concerning, or the possibilities attaching to, life imprisonment, or the irrevocableness of an executed sentence of death, or an apprehension that explanatory facts may exist which have not been brought to light, or any other consideration whatever which in the light of the evidence, the duty they owe to the accused and to the state, and the law as explained to them by the judge, appears to them to be important. [10a] Defendant relies also on the statement in People v. Anderson (1966) 64 Cal.2d 633, 641 [51 Cal. Rptr. 238, 414 P.2d 366], that it is improper for a court to instruct a jury at the penalty phase that it may not be influenced by pity for the defendant or sympathy for him. [9b] Friend was explicitly overruled by People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631, 637 fn. 2, 649 [36 Cal. Rptr. 201, 388 P.2d 33], with respect to comment on the possibility of parole. Moreover, the quoted language in Friend was directed at the scope of permissible comment and delineation of areas which jurors may consider. Such cases as People v. Morse, supra , People v. Hines (1964) 61 Cal.2d 164, 168-169 [37 Cal. Rptr. 622, 390 P.2d 398], and People v. Terry (1964) 61 Cal.2d 137, 154 [37 Cal. Rptr. 605, 390 P.2d 381], have recognized that the jury must decide the awesome question of life or death without benefit of guideposts, standards or applicable criteria. No error resulted from the court's rejection of defendant's proposed instruction, since that part which referred to deterrence was disapproved by People v. Morse, supra, 60 Cal.2d 631, and that part which enumerated factors for the jury's consideration was more correctly covered by another of defendant's requested instructions based upon Morse, Terry, and Hines. The court did instruct the jury that: It is your duty to conscientiously consider all of the evidence admitted in arriving at your decision as to penalty. It is not essential to your decision that you find mitigating circumstances on the one hand or evidence in aggravation of the offense on the other. As to whether the defendant shall suffer death or confinement in a State Prison for life, the law commits the entire matter to your judgment and conscience based upon a sound and absolute discretion. [10b] Anderson is clearly inappropriate to defendant's argument. To hold a negative instruction improper is not to require that the same instruction be tendered in the affirmative.