What is the test for jury instruction No. 18 in a case where a jury is not required to reach unanimity as to the existence or weight of any factors in mitigation?

As to proposed instruction No. 18, which would have made explicit that jurors were not required to reach unanimity as to the existence or weight of any factors in mitigation, we have held the trial court is "not required to instruct [the jury] that unanimity is not required before a juror may consider evidence to be mitigating," (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 641, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 528, 2 P.3d 1081 ), and that, accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury with language nearly identical to that proposed here. (People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1329, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 347, 324 P.3d 183, cert. den. sub nom. Chism v. California (2014) U.S. , 135 S.Ct. 403, 190 L.Ed.2d 293.)