California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Samuels, 113 P.3d 1125, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 105, 36 Cal.4th 96 (Cal. 2005):
Defendant claims the trial court did not adequately define the meaning of the term "mitigating." Defendant contends that CALJIC No. 8.88 as read to the jury was reasonably likely to lead the jury to believe it was limited by the type of mitigating evidence it could consider. We have previously rejected this argument and do so again. (People v. Taylor, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1180-1181, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 34 P.3d 937.)
In addition, defendant claims the trial court should have instructed the jury that if the factors in aggravation did not outweigh the factors in mitigation, then it should return a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. We reject this claim. (People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 978, 281 Cal.Rptr. 273, 810 P.2d 131.)
d) Alleged trial court error by failing to instruct jury on core adjudicative principles
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.