Opinion ID: 2507985
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factors (d) and (k)

Text: CALJIC No. 8.85 factor (d), reflecting section 190.3, factor (d), asks the jury to consider, if applicable, Whether or not the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Defendant complains that the court erroneously refused to modify the factor in order to inform the jury that it should consider any mental or emotional disturbance or delete the factor altogether so that the jury would give due weight to defendant's mental illness. The trial court also rejected defendant's request to modify the catchall factor in section 190.3, factor (k), to include 10 items described by Dr. Kormos as the possible causes of defendant's mental illness. As the People observe, the court did not err. CALJIC No. 8.85, as given, permitted the jury to consider defendant's mental illness even though it might have amounted to an extreme condition, and defendant is not entitled to a pinpoint instruction. ( People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1054-1055, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044 ( Jenkins ).) In addition, in refusing to modify the wording of section 190.3, factor (k) as reflected by CALJIC No. 8.85, factor (k), the court placed no improper limitation on mitigating evidence. Under the instruction as given, the jury could consider any circumstance that extenuated the gravity of the crime, including Dr. Kormos's testimony on the causes of defendant's mental illness. (See Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1055, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044.)