Opinion ID: 2517801
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of automatic motion for modification of death verdict

Text: On September 8, 1993, the trial court denied defendant's automatic motion for modification of the death verdict (§ 190.4(e)). Defendant claims the ruling was improper, in that the court disregarded all mitigating evidence. Defendant did not object below to any aspect of the court's recitation of its reasons for denying the automatic modification motion. He has therefore forfeited his claim. ( Lewis and Oliver, supra, 39 Cal.4th 970, 1064, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 467, 140 P.3d 775, citing People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1220, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969 [applying the forfeiture rule to hearings on such motions following the finality of People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 839 P.2d 984].) As we hereafter explain, the contention lacks merit in any event. Section 190.4(e) requires that, in ruling on the motion, the judge shall review the evidence, consider, take into account, and be guided by the aggravating and mitigating circumstances referred to in [s]ection 190.3, and shall make a determination as to whether the jury's findings and verdicts that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances are contrary to law or the evidence presented. The judge shall state on the record the reasons for his findings. `On appeal, we subject a ruling on such an application to independent review: the decision resolves a mixed question of law and fact; a determination of this kind is generally examined de novo [citation]. Of course, when we conduct such scrutiny, we simply review that trial court's determination after independently considering the record; we do not make a de novo determination of penalty.' ( People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1211, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 759, 117 P.3d 476, quoting Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d 612, 703-704, 286 Cal.Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84.) The trial court began its ruling by correctly stating its statutory obligation. Indicating it had carefully reviewed the guilt and penalty phase evidence, the court said it was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the truth of the guilt and special circumstance findings, and that defendant had raped Alexandra M. Assessing the circumstances of the capital crimethe killing of a witness, and the decapitation and dismemberment of the corpse to hamper identificationthe court found them totally repulsive, heinous, and a grave threat to our society, committed by a man with a base, antisocial personality who had little regret for his conduct or the injury caused to innocent people. The court indicated it had considered potential factors in mitigation, including any circumstances which extenuate the gravity of the crime even though not a legal excuse for the crime. In this regard, the court stated, it had examined all the testimony of defendant's neighbors, associates, his children's teachers and co-workers, and of his prison adjustment expert, as well as the evidence of his participation in civic organizations and his assistance to jail inmates, but found nothing mitigating in his character or background. On the contrary, said the court, defendant's privileged background and adult success weighed against mitigation. Indeed, said the court, defendant's life has been a life of egocentricity with total disregard for any human being. Though it had considered sympathy and compassion, the court asserted, in light of the evidence, these considerations are not sufficient or do not in any way serve as the basis of a sentence less than death. In sum, the court ruled, considering all the evidence and by independent review, the Court's personal assessment is that the factors in aggravation beyond all reasonable doubt outweigh those in mitigation, and further the court independently finds that the evidence of aggravation is so substantial when compared to the evidence of mitigation that it warrants death and not life without possibility of parole. Thus, the court fully considered all the proffered mitigating evidence and simply deemed it insufficient to warrant a sentence less than death. On review, we cannot say that ruling is contrary to law or the evidence. No error occurred.