Opinion ID: 2613228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Sentencing Discretion

Text: (28) Defendant contends the court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole even if it found no mitigating evidence whatever. (See People v. Duncan, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 979 [jury may determine even in the absence of mitigating evidence that the aggravating evidence is insubstantial].) We disagree. The jury was instructed that it should consider, take into account, and be guided by the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors; that the weighing process does not mean a mere mechanical counting of factors on each side of an imaginary scale, or the arbitrary assignment of weights to any of them; and that the jury is free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various factors.... The jury was further told to determine under the relevant evidence which penalty is justified and appropriate by considering the totality of the aggravating circumstances with the mitigating circumstances.... To return a judgment of death, each of you must be persuaded that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that it [ sic ] warrants death instead of life without parole. First, defendant does not suggest the foregoing instructions were incorrect, but only that they were inadequate. Yet defendant failed to request clarifying instructions, an omission which bars appellate review of the issue. (See, e.g., People v. Hardy, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 153; People v. Sully (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1195, 1218 [283 Cal. Rptr. 144, 812 P.2d 163].) In any event, we believe the foregoing instruction adequately advised the jury of its sentencing responsibilities. No reasonable juror would assume he or she was required to impose death despite insubstantial aggravating circumstances, merely because no mitigating circumstances were found to exist. Indeed, it seems unlikely the jury would conclude that mitigating circumstances were entirely lacking in this case: the defense introduced substantial evidence in mitigation.