Opinion ID: 1367717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: The Trial Court's Alleged Consideration of Improper Matter in Denying the Automatic Motion for Modification of the Penalty Verdict

Text: During argument regarding the automatic application for modification of the penalty verdict pursuant to section 190.4, subdivision (e), the prosecutor referred to a number of citizen petitions (attached to the probation report) urging imposition of the death penalty. Defendant objected, and the court stated: I'm not going to rule on public outcry. I know that they're there, but I haven't read the names. I just know there's a lot of names there, but I can't sentence Mr. Zapien on public outcry. After further discussion, the following colloquy occurred: The Court: I've made my position clear. [The Prosecutor]: You're not going to refer to it? The Court: I don't think the court can do that. I think unless they were here in court and heard all the evidence, I don't know what they're relying upon. I know what I'm relying upon, that's the law, and that's what I have to do. [The Prosecutor]: All right. If you're going to ignore it, that's fine. The Court: I didn't say ignore it, I said I knew there were a lot of people who signed the petitions. That's all I know. [The Prosecutor]: I'm not trying to put words in the court's mouth. If you don't want me to address it, I won't. I'll move on.... The court subsequently denied the motion for modification of sentence, making no reference to the citizen petitions. (47) Defendant contends the court erroneously considered these petitions in ruling on the motion for modification of the penalty verdict, because the court stated it would not ignore the petitions. The record does not support defendant's argument. A reading of the court's entire discussion concerning the citizen petitions reveals that, although the court objected to the prosecutor's use of the word ignore in describing the court's actions, it properly refused to consider the petitions in denying the motion for modification. Relying upon the decision in Booth v. Maryland, supra, 482 U.S. 496, defendant also contends the trial court erred in considering the impact of the murder on the victim's children. (See also South Carolina v. Gathers, supra, 490 U.S. 805.) We have held that the broad holding of Booth and Gathers does not extend to proceedings relating to the application for modification of a verdict of death under section 190.4(e). [Citation.] ( People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 812 [276 Cal. Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330].) Moreover, as noted above, [d]uring the pendency of this appeal both Booth and Gathers were largely overruled. ( Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. ___ [115 L.Ed.2d 720, 111 S.Ct. 2597].) We have since held that the injury inflicted by the defendant โ including the impact of the crime on the family of the victim โ is one of the circumstances of the crime, evidence of which is admissible under section 190.3, factor (a). [Citations.] ( People v. Thomas, supra, 2 Cal.4th 489, 535.) We therefore reject defendant's claim that the trial court committed error in ruling upon the automatic motion for modification of the penalty verdict.