PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER Part-VII
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>PEOPLE<br /> v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >PEOPLE <br /> v. ALEXANDER</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/15/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >IN THE SUPREME<br /> COURT OF </b><b >CALIFORNIA</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>THE PEOPLE, )<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/> Plaintiff<br /> and Respondent, )<br /> <br/> ) S053228<br /> <br/> v. )<br /> <br/> ) <br /> <br/>ANDRE STEPHEN ALEXANDER, )<br /> <br/> ) Los<br /> Angeles County<br /> <br/> Defendant<br /> and Appellant. ) Super. Ct.<br /> No. BA065313-01<br /> <br/>__________________________________ )<u></u><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >Story continued from part VI…..</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/>In sum, the<br /> trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate any of defendant's<br /> statutory or constitutional rights in making its inquiry in response to the<br /> foreman's note or in deciding to give the supplemental instructions in an<br /> attempt to clarify the law for the jury.<br /> <h2>C. <br /> Challenged Penalty Phase Jury Instructions</h2><br /> <br/> Defendant contends the trial court<br /> erred by declining to instruct the jury at the penalty phase with a modified<br /> version of CALJIC No. 8.85 that would have informed the jury that mitigating<br /> factors need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that evidence of only<br /> one mitigating factor may be sufficient to support a decision that the<br /> appropriate punishment is life without the possibility of parole. We previously have rejected these<br /> contentions, and defendant presents no compelling reason for us to reconsider<br /> those decisions. (<i >People v. Guerra</i>, <i >supra</i>,<br /> 37 Cal.4th at p. 1150; see also <i >People v.<br /> Lucero</i> (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 729-731.) [CALJIC No. 8.85 correctly<br /> describes the jury's role in evaluating penalty phase evidence, and the trial<br /> court is not obliged to give an instruction purporting to clarify that role].)<br /> <h2>D. Alleged<br /> Interference with Jury Deliberations During Penalty Phase</h2><br /> <br/>Defendant<br /> contends the trial court's response to a penalty phase note from the jury<br /> improperly invaded the jury's deliberations and coerced a verdict in violation<br /> of his statutory and constitutional rights. This claim is without merit.<br /> <br/>On the afternoon of the second day of penalty<br /> phase deliberations, the jury sent the trial court a note asking â€