Section 3550 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

P.2d 516]; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 799 [276 Cal.Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d
330].)
Following this instruction, the court must give CALCRIM No. 3550, Pre-
Deliberation Instructions, explaining how to proceed in deliberations.
AUTHORITY
•
Death Penalty Statute. Pen. Code, § 190.3.
•
Error to Instruct “Shall Impose Death.” People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512,
544 [230 Cal.Rptr. 834, 726 P.2d 516].
•
Must Instruct on Weighing Process. People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 544
[230 Cal.Rptr. 834, 726 P.2d 516]; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 799
[276 Cal.Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330]; People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955,
977–979 [281 Cal.Rptr. 273, 810 P.2d 131].
•
Aggravating Factors “So Substantial in Comparison to” Mitigating. People v.
Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 977–979 [281 Cal.Rptr. 273, 810 P.2d 131].
•
This Instruction Approved in Dicta. People v. Murtishaw (2011) 51 Cal.4th 574,
588–589 [121 Cal.Rptr.3d 586, 247 P.3d 941].
•
Responding to Juror Inquiry re Commutation of Sentence. People v. Letner and
Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 204–207 [112 Cal.Rptr.3d 746, 235 P.3d 62].
RELATED ISSUES
No Presumption of Life and No Reasonable Doubt Standard
The court is not required to instruct the jury that there is a presumption in favor of
a life sentence; that the aggravating factors (other than prior crimes) must be found
beyond a reasonable doubt; or that the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt
that the aggravating factors substantially outweigh the mitigating factors. (People v.
Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 800 [276 Cal.Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330]; People v.
Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 107 [241 Cal.Rptr. 594, 744 P.2d 1127]; People v.
Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 777–779 [230 Cal.Rptr. 667, 726 P.2d 113].)
Unanimity on Factors Not Required
The court is not required to instruct the jury that they must unanimously agree on
any aggravating circumstance. (People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 777–779
[230 Cal.Rtpr. 667, 726 P.2d 113].)
Commutation Power
The court must not state or imply to the jury that the ultimate authority for selecting
the sentence to be imposed lies elsewhere. (Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985) 472 U.S.
320, 328–329 [105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231].)
Deadlock—No Duty to Inform Jury Not Required to Return Verdict
“[W]here, as here, there is no jury deadlock, a court is not required to instruct the
jury that it has the choice not to deliver any verdict.” (People v. Miranda (1987) 44
CALCRIM No. 766
HOMICIDE
514

evidence.” (People v. Johnwell (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1274 [18 Cal.Rptr.3d
286].)
There is no sua sponte duty to inform the jury that an insanity verdict would result
in the defendant’s commitment to a mental hospital. However, this instruction must
be given on request. (People v. Moore (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 540, 556 [211
Cal.Rptr. 856]; People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 538 [3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677, 822
P.2d 385].)
If the court conducts a bifurcated trial on the insanity plea, the court must also give
t