Opinion ID: 2618245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 73

Heading: Overlap between Factors (a) and (b)

Text: Defendants argue the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that factor (b) referred to crimes of violence other than those of which the defendants were convicted in the guilt phase. ( Melton, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 763.) However, we think any ambiguity in the language of the statute or current instructions will rarely have caused prejudice. Absent improper argument, jurors are unlikely to give the circumstances of the current crime greater weight in the penalty determination simply because they appear to be included in two separate categories of statutory `aggravation.' ( Ibid.; People v. Miller (1990) 50 Cal.3d 954, 1009 [269 Cal. Rptr. 492, 790 P.2d 1289].) Defendants do not direct our attention to any improper argument in this regard and we have found none. They claim, however, that three photographs of the victims were admitted at the penalty phase based on their relevance to factor (b). The record shows the prosecutor sought the admission of the pictures to enable the jury to better understand the force and violence that was necessary to kill the victims. It is clear, however, that the photographs were admitted under section 190.3, factor ( a ), i.e., The circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding. Under the circumstances, we find there is no reasonable possibility that the failure to clarify the scope of factor (b) could have affected the outcome of the trial. ( Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 447-448.)