PEOPLE
v. ALEXANDER
Filed 7/15/10
IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, )
)
Plaintiff
and Respondent, )
) S053228
v. )
)
ANDRE STEPHEN ALEXANDER, )
) Los
Angeles County
Defendant
and Appellant. ) Super. Ct.
No. BA065313-01
__________________________________ )
Story continued from part VI…..
In sum, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate any of defendant's
statutory or constitutional rights in making its inquiry in response to the
foreman's note or in deciding to give the supplemental instructions in an
attempt to clarify the law for the jury.
C.
Challenged Penalty Phase Jury Instructions
Defendant contends the trial court
erred by declining to instruct the jury at the penalty phase with a modified
version of CALJIC No. 8.85 that would have informed the jury that mitigating
factors need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that evidence of only
one mitigating factor may be sufficient to support a decision that the
appropriate punishment is life without the possibility of parole. We previously have rejected these
contentions, and defendant presents no compelling reason for us to reconsider
those decisions. (People v. Guerra, supra,
37 Cal.4th at p. 1150; see also People v.
Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 729-731.) [CALJIC No. 8.85 correctly
describes the jury's role in evaluating penalty phase evidence, and the trial
court is not obliged to give an instruction purporting to clarify that role].)
D. Alleged
Interference with Jury Deliberations During Penalty Phase
Defendant
contends the trial court's response to a penalty phase note from the jury
improperly invaded the jury's deliberations and coerced a verdict in violation
of his statutory and constitutional rights. This claim is without merit.
On the afternoon of the second day of penalty
phase deliberations, the jury sent the trial court a note asking â€
| Description | On June 4, 1980, Julie Cross, an agent of the United States Secret Service, was murdered in the line of duty. Over a decade later, defendant Andre Stephen Alexander was charged with Cross's murder. In 1996, a jury convicted him of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187),[1] and found true allegations that he personally used a firearm and that a principal was armed with a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (a)). The jury also found true special circumstance allegations that defendant previously had been convicted of murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2)) and that the murder of Cross had been committed in the course of a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). At the penalty phase of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial court denied a motion for a new trial and the automatic motion to modify the penalty verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), and it imposed the death sentence. Appeal to this court is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) Court affirm the judgment. |
| Rating |
