Opinion ID: 2507905
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Refused Instruction on Statutory Factors in Aggravation.

Text: Defendant's proposed instruction No. 2, which the trial court rejected, stated: The factors listed in Sections A, B and C, which are: the circumstances of the crime, the presence or absence of prior criminal activity involving the use or attempted use of force or violence, and the presence or absence of any felony conviction are the only factors that you may consider to be aggravating factors. You are not allowed to take into account any other facts or circumstances as weighing in favor of imposing the penalty of death on the defendant. Defendant's argument fails. The trial court is not constitutionally required to include an instruction identifying which factors are to be considered in aggravation. ( People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 898, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15; People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1266, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 212, 954 P.2d 475.) We characterized a very similar argument as display[ing] a fundamental misunderstanding of the differing constitutional requirements for the narrowing and sentence-selection aspects of a state's capital sentencing law. ( People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 898, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15, citing People v. Musselwhite, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1266, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 212, 954 P.2d 475.) Thus, the trial judge properly declined defendant's instruction.