Opinion ID: 3189192
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assessment of mitigating evidence

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The United States Supreme Court has held a trial court need not so instruct. (Kansas v. Carr (2016) 577 U.S. ___, ___ [136 S.Ct. 633, 642] [“our case law does not 50 require capital sentencing courts „to affirmatively inform the jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt‟ ”]; accord, Samayoa, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 862.) Defendant further contends the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury that it could consider as mitigating the “favorable treatment received by someone you personally believe to be an accomplice.” “We have consistently held that evidence of an accomplice‟s sentence or of the leniency granted an accomplice is irrelevant at the penalty phase because „ “it does not shed any light on the circumstances of the offense or the defendant‟s character, background, history or mental condition.” ‟ ” (Maciel, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 549.)