Opinion ID: 1399255
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on Evidence of the Love of Defendant's Family for Him

Text: The court instructed the jury to consider in mitigation any devotion and affection for [defendant's] family and they for him. (13) Defendant contends the court erred in refusing his request to also tell the jury that this evidence may be sufficient standing alone to warrant the return of a verdict of life.... We disagree. The court instructed the jury that it was not to mechanically count the factors, but that it was free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various factors that you are permitted to consider. This correctly instructed the jury on the weight to be given any factor. (See People v. Sully, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pp. 1244-1245; People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 977-979 [281 Cal. Rptr. 273, 810 P.2d 131]; People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 545, fn. 19.) There is no duty to tell the jury that any specific fact alone might warrant a verdict of life. ( People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281, 316-317 [3 Cal. Rptr.2d 81, 821 P.2d 585]; People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 696-698 [286 Cal. Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84]; see also People v. Cooper, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 844 [trial court properly refused to give any specific instruction regarding the impact of the verdict on the defendant's family].)