Return to CALJIC Part 3-4 – Contents
F 4.01 n1 Consequences Of Insanity Verdict (PC 1026, et seq.).
CJ 4.01 and/or CJ 17.41 should be modified to make clear that the jury may consider the consequences of an insanity verdict to the extent that they are permitted to do so by CJ 4.01. People v. Kelly (92) 1 C4th 495, 536-37 [3 CR2d 677], rejected an argument that the court had a sua sponte obligation to so clarify the instructions but, when necessary to explain a defense theory, it should be done upon request. (See FORECITE PG III(A).)
[Research Note: See FORECITE BIBLIO 4.00, et al.]
F 4.01 n2 Jurors May Not Consider Sympathy, Etc. At Sanity Trial (PC 1026, et seq.).
Sanity phase jurors may not consider sentiment, conjecture, sympathy or the consequences of its verdict. (People v. Kelly (92) 1 C4th 495, 536-37 [3 CR2d 677.])
[Research Note: See FORECITE BIBLIO 4.00, et al.]
F 4.01 n3 Consequences Of Insanity Verdict: Waiver For Strategic Reasons.
In People v. Jones (97) 15 C4th 119, 178-79 [61 CR2d 386] the court held that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request CJ 4.01 regarding the consequences of an insanity verdict. The court reasoned that the instruction aids the defendant by assuring the jury the defendant will not be released immediately upon a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, but a defendant reasonably could choose not to request the instruction for fear it might focus the attention of the jury upon the possibility of the defendant’s release if he or she is restored to sanity.
F 4.01 n4 Error To Appoint Same Experts For Both The Competency And Sanity Hearings.
See People v. Weaver (2001) 26 C4th 876, 961 [111 CR2d 552] [appointment of same two psychiatrists to examine defendant to determine competency to stand trial and determine his sanity violated his right against self-incrimination].
