Opinion ID: 3149417
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Impact of Execution on the Defendant’s Family

Text: During the direct examination of defendant‟s sister-in-law, Vicki Cordova, defense counsel asked why she did not believe defendant should receive the death penalty. She responded, “Because he has a family who care about him and . . . that would be devastating for the family.” The prosecutor objected and asked the comment be stricken. The court instructed the jury to disregard the comment and said, “The impact on defendant‟s family of the penalty that‟s imposed is not relevant. You‟ll disregard that.” The court‟s instructions to the jury at the end of the evidence portion of the penalty phase included the following: “Sympathy for the family of the defendant, as opposed to defendant himself, is not a matter you can consider in mitigation. Evidence, if any, of the impact of an execution on family members should be disregarded unless and to the extent it illuminates some positive quality of the defendant‟s background or character.” Defendant contends the court erred in instructing the jury not to consider in mitigation evidence of the impact his execution would have on his family. The Attorney General argues that the claim is forfeited. During the penalty trial, defense counsel recognized that the law was as the court instructed and, accordingly, did not object to the instruction. Instead, he argued that the instruction should include the qualifying language permitting the jury to consider such evidence to the extent it illuminates some quality of defendant‟s background or character. However, even absent an objection, a defendant may argue an instruction is erroneous “if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby.” (§ 1259.) Defendant contends the instruction violated his substantial 57 rights. Accordingly, we will consider the contention on the merits. (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 503.) The contention lacks merit. We have repeatedly upheld this instruction. (People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 165, 197-198, and cases cited.) Defendant asks us to reconsider these cases, but he presents no good reason to do so. Except as it may illuminate some quality of the defendant‟s background or character, the impact of execution on the defendant‟s family is simply irrelevant to the penalty determination. The court did not restrict defendant‟s ability to present evidence that illuminated his background or character.