Does the court have a duty to advise the jury regarding the Governor's power to commute both a death sentence and a sentence of life without parole?

Defendant asserts that the court had a duty to admonish the jury it was not to speculate about how future changes in the law might affect defendant's sentence, and to guide the jury into consideration of only relevant evidence, and failed to do so. Defendant made no objection to the court's explanatory response to the jury's question, and, accordingly forfeited his present argument. (People v. Martinez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 673, 698, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 648, 74 P.3d 748.) Had it been properly presented, it would fail on the merits.

Our holding in People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 136, 207 Cal.Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430, precludes either court or counsel from advising the jury regarding the Governor's power to commute both a sentence of death and a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Such advice violates the guarantee of a fair decisionmaking process because it invites the jury to speculate about the future actions of unknown persons, directs the jury's attention away from its proper function of weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, and renders arbitrary the decision regarding defendant's

[24 Cal.Rptr.3d 542]

punishment. (Id. at p. 157, 207 Cal.Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430.)

[24 Cal.Rptr.3d 542]