Opinion ID: 2600593
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Instruction concerning the appropriateness of a sentence of death

Text: Defendant contends that CALJIC No. 8.88 fails to convey that the death penalty must be appropriate, not merely warranted. Again, defendant has focused upon specific terms and ignores the instructions as a whole. This instruction informs the jury that [t]he weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances does not mean a mere mechanical counting of factors on each side of an imaginary scale, or the arbitrary assignment of weights to any of them. You are free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various factors you are permitted to consider. In weighing the various circumstances you determine under the relevant evidence which penalty is justified and appropriate by considering the totality of the aggravating circumstances with the totality of the mitigating circumstances. (CALJIC No. 8.88.) As we have explained, CALJIC 8.88 properly describes the weighing process as `merely a metaphor for the juror's personal determination that death is the appropriate penalty under all of the circumstances.' ( People v. Jackson, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1244, quoting People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1250.) [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702,842 P.2d 1].) ( People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1161 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 373, 52 P.3d 572].)