CALCRIM No. 767. Response to Juror Inquiry During Deliberations About Commutation of Sentence in Death Penalty Case
Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2020 edition)Download PDF
767.Response to Juror Inquiry During Deliberations About
Commutation of Sentence in Death Penalty Case
It is your responsibility to decide which penalty is appropriate for the
defendant in this case. Base your decision only on the evidence you have
heard in court and on the instructions that I have given you. Do not
speculate or consider anything other than the evidence and my
New April 2010; Revised April 2011
This instruction should be given only in response to a jury question about
commutation of sentence or at the request of the defendant. (People v. Ramos (1984)
37 Cal.3d 136, 159, fn. 12 [207 Cal.Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430]). “The key in Ramos
is whether the jury raises the commutation issue so that it ‘cannot be avoided.’ ”
(People v. Bramit (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1221, 1251 [96 Cal.Rptr.3d 574, 210 P.3d 1171]
(conc. opn. of Moreno, J.)) Commutation instructions are proper, however, when the
jury implicitly raises the issue of commutation. No direct question is necessary.
(People v. Beames (2007) 40 Cal.4th 907, 932 [55 Cal.Rptr.3d 865, 153 P.3d 955].)
• Instructional Requirements. Pen. Code, § 190.3; People v. Letner and Tobin
(2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 204-207 [112 Cal.Rptr.3d 746, 235 P.3d 62]..
3 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Punishment, § 589.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 87, Death
Penalty, § 87.02 (Matthew Bender).
768-774. Reserved for Future Use