Opinion ID: 844263
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Gonzales's Age as a Mitigating Factor

Text: Gonzales was 19 years old at the time of the murders charged in this case. Gonzales, joined by Soliz, contends the trial court erred when it refused Gonzales's proposed special instruction on his age at the time of the crimes as a factor in determining penalty, based on language in People v. Lucky (1988) 45 Cal.3d 259, 302 [247 Cal.Rptr. 1, 753 P.2d 1052]. [19] However, the trial court properly refused the special instruction, because age was adequately covered by section 190.3, factor (i), as expressed in CALJIC No. 8.85, which instructed the jury to consider the age of the defendant at the time of the crime as a factor in determining penalty. We found no error in the court's rejection of the same proposed instruction in People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 398, 472-473 [46 Cal.Rptr.3d 677, 139 P.3d 64]. As we observed, no special or unusual age-related factors were presented in that case, and, likewise, none are presented here. Accordingly, the court's instruction to consider defendant's age, without further elaboration, was sufficient. . . . ( Id. at p. 473.)