Opinion ID: 2621639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Absence of prior felony convictions

Text: The defense requested the following special instruction (Special Instruction No. 4) on prior felony convictions: There has been no evidence presented that the defendant has been convicted of any prior felony. This circumstance should therefore be viewed as a circumstance in mitigation. The trial court did not use Special Instruction No. 4, commenting that the point was covered in a different way by the instructions the court proposed to give. We have concluded in prior decisions that a trial court need not instruct that the absence of prior felony convictions is necessarily mitigating. ( People v. Jones (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1084, 1124, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 70 P.3d 359; People v. Lucero, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 730, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 871, 3 P.3d 248; see also People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 313-314, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 793, 949 P.2d 890.) We reasoned that a jury instructed that it may consider the absence of prior felony convictions ( People v. Lucero, supra, at p. 730, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 871, 3 P.3d 248; People v. Jones, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 314, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 793, 949 P.2d 890) and any `aspect of the defendant's character or record that the defendant offers as a basis for a sentence less than death' ( Jones, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 1124, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 70 P.3d 359) will necessarily understand that it may consider in mitigation a defendant's lack of prior felony convictions. Defendant does not persuade us to reconsider these decisions. In argument to the jury, the prosecutor stated that, because defendant had no prior felony convictions, section 190, factor (c), was not applicable. Defense counsel argued, to the contrary, that this factor was mitigating. Defendant now contends that his proposed Special Instruction No. 4 was necessary to resolve this dispute in defendant's favor. We have never decided whether factor (c) can only be a factor in aggravation or whether, instead, it can be either aggravating or mitigating. (See People v. Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 1038, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689, 857 P.2d 1099 [suggesting that factor (c) may be mitigating]; see generally People v. Davenport, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 289-290, 221 Cal.Rptr. 794, 710 P.2d 861.) But even if we assume for the sake of argument that factor (c) can be mitigating, nothing in the trial court's instruction here suggested otherwise. The trial court expressly instructed the jury, twice, to consider the presence or absence  (italics added) of prior felony convictions by defendant involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force or violence. Because the absence of prior felony convictions by a capital defendant could not be aggravating, the jury would necessarily understand that, depending on the evidence, it could regard the absence of prior felony convictions as mitigating.