holding that the court’s instructions as a 20 whole properly guided the jury’s consideration of the evidence because CALJIC No. 8.20 “adequately 21 expressed the need for joint operation of act and intent [for first-degree murder]”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the court’s instructions as a 20 whole properly guided the jury’s consideration of the evidence because CALJIC No. 8.20 “adequately 21 expressed the need for joint operation of act and intent [for first-degree murder]”
- reviewing claim where failure to request jury instruction involved a “substantial right”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOSK, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the judgment as to guilt, death eligibility, and noncapital sentence. After review, no error or other defect is evident requiring reversal or vacation on any of these issues.
I dissent, however, from the judgment as to the sentence of death. I would set aside that penalty as unreliable under the Eighth Amendment to the *1199 United States Constitution and article I, section 17 of the California Constitution because defendant’s counsel introduced none of the available evidence in mitigation. 1 It is the duty of the sentencer to weigh aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances. How can it do so when it is presented with the former but not with the latter? In such a situation, which obtains here, the scale is automatically, and arbitrarily, skewed in favor of death.
The petitions of both respondent and appellant for a rehearing were denied February 16, 1995, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petitions should be granted.
See People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1017, 1074 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 174 , 846 P.2d 756 ] (conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.), reversed on other grounds sub nom. Stansbury v. California (1994) 511 U.S. _ [ 128 L.Ed.2d 293 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 ]; People v. Diaz (1992) 3 Cal.4th 495, 577 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 353 , 834 P.2d 1171 ] (conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.); People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1197 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 ] (conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.); People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 531-533 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 537 , 797 P.2d 561 ] (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.); People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1059-1062 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 386 , 782 P.2d 627 ] (conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.); see also People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, 1158-1061 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 635 , 751 P.2d 901 ] (conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.); People v. Deere (1985) 41 Cal.3d 353, 360-368 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 13 , 710 P.2d 925 ].