Opinion ID: 1281413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Compassion

Text: (46) Defendant contends the prosecutor misstated the law by imploring the jury not to exercise compassion. The prosecutor argued to the jury: I ask you that while you consider the evidence, while you deliberate ... that you don't yield to the most obvious trait of human nature, that's compassion. [¶] I'm not saying that you can't use that, that there isn't a place for that because there is, but don't yield to that temptation just to shuck it all and compromise and just say let's take the easy way out and not make a decision based on the evidence. The prosecutor then urged the jury that although it was natural and proper to feel compassion for defendant's mother, they should not let compassion for her overrule [their] judgment as to what should be done with [defendant]. These comments were not misconduct. As in People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1201 [240 Cal. Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301], the prosecutor did not say that the jury could not consider any mercy or sympathy factors which were supported by the evidence. (Compare People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21, 58 [188 Cal. Rptr. 77, 655 P.2d 279].) Rather, he simply urged the jury not to decide defendant's fate based on untethered compassion for him or his mother alone, without following their lawful obligation to consider the evidence.