Opinion ID: 2621639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Labeling factors as aggravating or mitigating

Text: The defense requested the following special instruction (Special Instruction No. 17) on aggravating and mitigating circumstances: The factors set forth in subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) above are the only factors that can be considered by you as aggravating factors. However, you may find one or more of these factors to be (a) mitigating factor(s). You are not required to find that any of these factors are aggravating. It is up to you to determine whether these factors exist, and if they do exist, whether they are mitigating or aggravating. The factors set forth in subparagraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (i) [ sic ] below can only be considered by you to be mitigating factors. The absence of a mitigating factor is not, and cannot be considered by you as, an aggravating factor. The trial court refused the request, explaining that the subject matter of proposed Special Instruction No. 17 was adequately covered by the instructions the court proposed to give. We have consistently held that a trial court in a capital case need not instruct the jury on whether any of the various statutory penalty factors is potentially aggravating or mitigating. ( People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 271-272, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 66 P.3d 1123; People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 899, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 1026-1027, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183.) As we explained in People v. Jackson [(1980)] 28 Cal.3d [264] at page 316 [168 Cal.Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149], with respect to the 1977 death penalty law, `the aggravating or mitigating nature of these various factors should be self-evident to any reasonable person within the context of each particular case.' ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 675, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351.) Likewise, a trial court need not instruct that the absence of a mitigating circumstance is not itself an aggravating circumstance. ( People v. Prieto, supra, at p. 276, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 66 P.3d 1123; People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1041, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 25 P.3d 519.) We recently found no error in a trial court's refusal of a proposed instruction identical to defendant's Special Instruction No. 17. ( People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1230 & fn. 26, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 553, 70 P.3d 981; see also People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 704-705, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640.) Defendant here does not persuade us to reconsider these decisions.