How has the jury been instructed to consider multiple factors in sentencing a defendant in a sexual assault case?

Finally, the comments of defense counsel underscored the jury's discretion to decide which penalty was appropriate under the circumstances: counsel advised the jurors that each of them had an independent, singular responsibility to determine the punishment, that it was not a democratic or community effort, and that each would have to live with the verdict. Defense counsel told the jurors to consider and weigh the factors, as they felt appropriate. (See People v. Grant, supra, 45 Cal.3d 829, 856-857, 248 Cal.Rptr. 444, 755 P.2d 894; People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, 1149, 245 Cal.Rptr. 635, 751 P.2d 901.) Moreover, defense counsel stressed that the most important factor, a factor in mitigation, was the absence of any violence in defendant's past, thereby underscoring the jurors' duty to consider the factors individually.

From the arguments both of the prosecutor and defense counsel, and from the instructions, the jurors would have understood that they were required to determine the appropriate penalty for defendant by weighing the enumerated factors. (People v. Burton, supra, 48 Cal.3d 843, 873, 258 Cal.Rptr. 184, 771 P.2d 1270.) Viewing the instructions and arguments as a whole, we are satisfied there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury was misled as to the scope of its sentencing responsibility. (People v. Clair, supra, 2 Cal.4th 629, 662-663, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564, 828 P.2d 705.) ¹²

2. Instruction on consideration of multiple special circumstances.