Opinion ID: 1293219
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Adequacy of the Section 190.4, Subdivision (e), Hearing

Text: Following the verdict of death, the court heard defendant's automatic motion for modification of the verdict. Section 190.4, subdivision (e), provides: In ruling on the application, the judge shall review the evidence, consider, take into account, and be guided by the aggravating and mitigating circumstances referred to in section 190.3. The record makes clear that the court recognized and fulfilled its statutory duty to make an independent determination whether the jury's verdicts and findings were contrary to the law or evidence presented. (48) Nonetheless, defendant attacks the court's ruling on the bases that the court: (i) erroneously considered defendant's age as aggravating, and (ii) improperly considered the probation report from the Orange County probation department. The latter report included information taken from police files (e.g., statements by detectives working on the case that defendant had probably killed other young girls), and victim impact statements. (See, e.g., Gathers, supra, 490 U.S. 805, ___ [104 L.Ed.2d 876, 878]; Booth, supra, 482 U.S. 496, 502 [96 L.Ed.2d 440, 448].) Read in the context of the entire record, we conclude the court's reference to defendant's age was a permissible comment on defendant's maturity and sophistication. (See, e.g., Lucky, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 302.) In addition, although we agree with defendant that his probation report was not relevant to the court's determination of defendant's application for modification of penalty under section 190.4, subdivision (e), we find any error nonprejudicial in this case. (See People v. Williams, supra, 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1329.) As we recently stated in Adcox, supra, 47 Cal.3d at page 274: absent evidence in the record to the contrary, we must assume that the court was not improperly influenced by the report in ruling on the application. In referring to the probation report, the court merely stated for the record: Let the record reflect the court has received and considered the probation report from the Orange County probation department. The court did not indicate that it relied on either the report as a whole, or on any evidence regarding the effect of the murders on the victims' families. Thus, we conclude the court's fleeting reference to the probation report here did not demonstrate any improper influence exercised by the court in its decision. In fact, the record reveals that the court reviewed the evidence within the framework of the statutory factors set forth in section 190.3, and made its own independent findings that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating ones in this case. (See also People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1044 [264 Cal. Rptr. 386, 782 P.2d 627] [trial court's consideration of victim's impact evidence did not affect ruling denying modification]; Adcox, supra, 47 Cal.3d 207, 273.)