Opinion ID: 2509517
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's proposed supplemental instructions

Text: Defendant's proposed special instruction B stated: The jury has the option to reject death if the evidence arouses sympathy, mercy, or compassion to the point that they jury feels that death is not the proper penalty in this case. This instruction was largely duplicative of defendant's special instruction No. 6, which the trial court accepted. That instruction told the jury that it could consider any sympathetic, compassionate, merciful, or other aspect of Defendant's background, character, record, or social, psychological or medical history, that the Defendant offers as a basis for a sentence less than death, whether or not related to the offense for which he is on trial. In any event, CALJIC No. 8.88 adequately informed the jurors that they could consider sympathy, mercy, and compassion in deciding whether death was the appropriate penalty. (See People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 343-344, 75 Cal. Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374.) Thus the trial court did not err in rejecting Defendant's special instruction B. The trial court also rejected defendant's proposed special instruction H: The weight to be given to the factors in aggravation and mitigation is a matter for each juror to determine ... [and accordingly] one mitigating factor can sometimes outweigh a number of aggravating factors. The trial court gave a jury instruction based on CALJIC No. 8.88, which told the jurors: You are free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various factors you are permitted to consider. The instruction then told the jurors: You may, but are not required to return a judgment of death if each of you are persuaded that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that it warrants death instead of life without parole. In People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at page 343, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374, we held that such instructions satisfied the constitutional requirement to advise the jury of its sentencing discretion.