Opinion ID: 2581763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Request for Instruction on Lingering Doubt

Text: Defendant requested a special jury instruction that lingering doubt could be considered as a mitigating factor. The superior court refused the instruction, on the basis that there was no authority for such instruction, but permitted defendant to present an argument in that regard to the jury. Defendant contends that the refusal to instruct on lingering doubt was error. We rejected the identical point in People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1068, 64 Cal. Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388, holding that the proposed instruction was unnecessary. We decline to revisit the issue. Defendant raises additional claims under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. They, too, are meritless. The federal constitutional provisions are not implicated. The United States Supreme Court has held that capital defendants have no federal constitutional right to such an instruction. ( Franklin v. Lynaugh (1988) 487 U.S. 164, 173-174, 108 S.Ct. 2320, 101 L.Ed.2d 155.)