Opinion ID: 1312308
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Argument in Violation of Davenport

Text: (25) During closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury that the absence of various statutory factors relevant to mitigation should be considered aggravating factors in the jury's sentencing deliberations. [13] As we held in the plurality opinion of People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 289 [221 Cal. Rptr. 794, 710 P.2d 861], this argument was improper. Although the prosecutor's argument is contrary to Davenport, we consider it harmless. First, a timely admonition could have cured the prosecutor's mischaracterization of the statutory factors. ( People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 27 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) Second, the jury was instructed to consider only applicable aggravating and mitigating factors. ( Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 775.) Third, in the beginning of his closing argument, the prosecutor specifically told the jury that only applicable factors should be considered in its deliberations. The prosecutor then stated: Now, whether they are aggravating, mitigating, or in the no-man's land that we will call neutral, and we will get to that in a minute, is for you to decide individually and collectively in your judgment function. (See also People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 790 [230 Cal. Rptr. 667, 726 P.2d 113].) Therefore, because the jury was well aware of the underlying facts, and in light of the prosecutor's opening statement and overwhelming nature of the properly admitted aggravating evidence, it is highly unlikely that the mischaracterization of the aggravating circumstances in this case substantially influenced the jury's decision. In addition, defense counsel's argument stressed the fact that the court's instructions allowed the jury a tremendous amount of leeway in determining the aggravating or mitigating nature of the relevant factors. Counsel stated: [I]s each factor a mitigating factor or aggravating factor? You have heard it once but you are going to hear it again.... [E]ach one of you on your own has to decide each one of those factors, whether it is a mitigating or aggravating factor ... any one mitigating factor by itself, is sufficient to spare this man's life. You need no other. You only need one. In light of the above considerations, we are confident that the prosecutor's unobjected-to mischaracterization of the aggravating factors was not prejudicial to defendant and that the jury's sentencing decision is constitutionally reliable. ( Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 775-776.)