Opinion ID: 1386274
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Alleged Failure to Adequately Instruct on the Scope of Potentially Mitigating Evidence

Text: (52) Defendant contends that the trial court erred by  allegedly  failing to adequately instruct the jury on the scope of potentially mitigating evidence as defined by the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment, as construed in Lockett v. Ohio, supra, 438 U.S. 586, and its progeny, which includes any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death ( id. at p. 604 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 990] (plur. opn. by Burger, C.J.). We reject the point out of hand. Again, what is crucial for the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishments clause is the meaning that the instructions communicated to the jury. In light of the instructions quoted in the preceding part, there is no reasonable likelihood that the jurors would have been led to entertain an erroneously narrow belief about the scope of potentially mitigating evidence. Defendant claims that the trial court did in fact err. He argues that the jury was not adequately instructed to consider his background, as opposed to his character and record. We think that background is embraced by character and, especially, record. There is no reasonable likelihood that the jurors would have believed otherwise. In view of the fact that the jurors were broadly instructed on the scope of potentially mitigating evidence, including evidence relating to background, defendant's argument proves to be altogether unpersuasive.