How have the courts interpreted sentencing instructions in a sexual assault case?

Defendant notes that the prosecutor argued to the jury that the evidence failed to show any "extreme" emotional disturbance or duress. But the prosecutor never argued that only an extreme condition could be considered by the jury in deciding penalty, and the court's instructions made it clear the contrary was true. We conclude that the jury was properly instructed in this regard. (The trial court's elaborate instructions regarding the jury's sentencing duties also readily circumvented the pitfalls catalogued in People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 538-545, 230 Cal.Rptr. 834, 726 P.2d 516.)

F. Failure to Reinstruct on Viewing Defendant's Extrajudicial Statements With Caution

Defendant next contends that the court erred in failing to reinstruct, sua sponte, at the penalty phase, that a defendant's own oral admissions should be viewed with caution. (See People v. Romo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 189, 194, 121 Cal.Rptr. 111, 534 P.2d 1015.) (Such an instruction was given at the guilt phase.) The argument is without merit.