Opinion ID: 1405837
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inapplicable factors; labeling of factors as aggravating or mitigating.

Text: Defendant offered instructions that only the circumstances of the current crime (§ 190.3, factor (a)) and other violent criminal activity ( id., factor (b)) could be considered in aggravation. The proposed instructions cautioned that the current murder could not be deemed aggravated simply because it was in the first degree or was committed in the course of a robbery and burglary. Finally, they advised that the mitigating factors were limited to (1) mental or emotional disturbance ( id., factor (d)), (2) mental defect or intoxication ( id., factor (h)), (3) any other extenuating circumstance ( id., factor (k)), and (4) defendant's personal history, family background and any fact that shows [defendant's] potential for rehabilitation. The trial court rejected these instructions in the form presented. The jury was informed of all the factors set forth in section 190.3 (with an added reference to personal history and family background). The instruction given did not label specific factors as aggravating or mitigating. Defendant urges the court erred in refusing to delete from the instructions those factors not presented by the evidence, and by failing to advise which remaining factors were aggravating and mitigating. (20) As previously noted, however, the instructions need not distinguish the aggravating from the mitigating circumstances. ( Ante, at p. 517.) Nor need they delete inapplicable factors. The jury is told to consider only applicable factors, and it is entitled to know how the particular case fits into all the factors society deems relevant to the appropriate penalty. ( Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 776-777; see People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 770-771 [244 Cal. Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741].) Defendant's claims lack merit.