Opinion ID: 1454621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: The Instruction Allowing Consideration of Extreme Mental Distress and Substantial Domination as Mitigating Circumstances

Text: (54) Defendant challenges the trial court's instruction following CALJIC No. 8.84.1 that the jury was to consider in mitigation  extreme mental or emotional disturbance and  substantial domination (italics added), arguing that its language precluded consideration of non-extreme mental disorders and less-than-substantial domination as mitigating circumstances. We have rejected similar arguments on several occasions and perceive no reason to reconsider the issue. ( People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 907-908 [274 Cal. Rptr. 849, 799 P.2d 1282]; People v. Murtishaw (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1001, 1033 [258 Cal. Rptr. 821, 773 P.2d 172]; People v. Sheldon (1989) 48 Cal.3d 935, 957 [258 Cal. Rptr. 242, 771 P.2d 1330]; People v. Morales (1989) 48 Cal.3d 527, 567-568 [257 Cal. Rptr. 64, 770 P.2d 244].) In addition, defendant was not prejudiced here because the jury was told that it was not limited in its consideration of mitigating factors, and defendant presented both evidence and argument as to his mental disorder. (48 Cal.3d at p. 568.)