Opinion ID: 2626390
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alleged Misstatements about Sentencing Discretion

Text: In closing argument, the prosecutor emphasized the standard instruction on sentencing discretion (CALJIC No. 8.88 (1989 rev.)), and used a chart of that instruction as a visual aid. He said that if jurors decided that aggravation substantially outweighed mitigation, then it's your responsibility, duty and obligation pursuant to your oath, if you think it's warranted, to impose the death penalty. He later made similar remarks about death as the appropriate penalty. The prosecutor also described the aggravating and mitigating factors in detail (see § 190.3, factors (a)-(k)), including defendant's character and background evidence. ( Id., factor (k).) Defendant seems to contend that the prosecutor mischaracterized death as automatic, mandatory, or nondiscretionary in the present case. As defendant suggests, jurors are free to reject death [based on] any constitutionally relevant evidence or observation that it is not the appropriate penalty. ( People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 540, 230 Cal.Rptr. 834, 726 P.2d 516, fn. & italics omitted, revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 107 S.Ct. 837, 93 L.Ed.2d 934.) The law also does not require any juror to vote for the death penalty unless, upon completion of the [individual and normative] `weighing' process, he decides that death is the appropriate penalty under all the circumstances. ( Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 541, 230 Cal.Rptr. 834, 726 P.2d 516.) First, we agree with the Attorney General that because defendant failed to raise any objection at trial, he has forfeited the present claim. (See People v. Davenport (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1171, 1221, 47 Cal. Rptr.2d 800, 906 P.2d 1068.) Second, no misconduct occurred. Consistent with applicable law and the court's instructions, the prosecutor made clear that in order to return a death verdict, jurors must determine that aggravation substantially outweighed mitigation, and that death was the appropriate penalty. Indeed, the prosecutor tempered his duty reference by urging jurors to choose death only if [they] think it's warranted. Consistent with the court's instructions, prosecutorial argument clearly and correctly implied that sentencing involved a normative weighing process, and that all relevant mitigation should be considered. Nothing indicated that jurors lacked discretion in the manner defendant suggests. [24]