California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hart, 20 Cal.4th 546, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683 (Cal. 1999):
Prior to the prosecution's opening statement at the penalty phase, the court received a note from one of the jurors. The note read: "Does life in prison without the possibility of parole mean he will never get out under any circumstances?" Outside the jury's presence, the court discussed the matter with counsel. Defense counsel expressed reservations about the jury's being informed of the Governor's power to commute a sentence of death or a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. 41 The prosecutor urged the court to follow this court's decision in People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 136, 207 Cal.Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430, wherein we held: "When the jury raises the commutation issue itself -- either during voir dire or in a question posed to the court during deliberations -- the matter obviously cannot be avoided and is probably best handled by a short statement indicating that the Governor's commutation power applies to both sentences but emphasizing that it would be a violation of the juror's duty to consider the possibility of such commutation in determining the appropriate sentence. [Citation.]" (37 Cal.3d at p. 159, fn. 12, 207 Cal.Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430.) In response to the juror's inquiry, the trial court expressed the views set forth in the margin. 42
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court's comments were misleading in failing
Page 201
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.