Opinion ID: 1345745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 31

Heading: Application for Modification of Penalty.

Text: Section 190.4, subdivision (e), provides that if a capital jury returns a verdict of death the defendant is deemed to have made an application for modification of the verdict, and directs: In ruling on the application, the judge shall review the evidence, consider, take into account, and be guided by the aggravating and mitigating circumstances ... and shall make a determination as to whether the jury's findings and verdicts that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances are contrary to law or the evidence presented. The judge shall state on the record the reasons for his findings. (25) Because the function of the judge in ruling on the motion for modification is to independently reweigh the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and then to determine whether, in the judge's independent judgment, the weight of the evidence supports the jury verdict ( People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1045 [264 Cal. Rptr. 386, 782 P.2d 627]), the only evidence the court is to review is that which was before the jury. ( People v. Lewis, supra, ante, 262, 287; People v. Jennings, supra, 46 Cal.3d 963, 995.) Defendant complains that the trial judge improperly considered evidence contained in a probation report when ruling on the section 190.4 motion, and that this evidence as well as the improperly admitted victim impact evidence influenced his decision to deny the motion. The record confirms that the court had read the probation report and did refer to its content in his statement. Here, however, unlike People v. Lewis, supra, ante, 262, 286-287, the record confirms that the report did not contribute to the decision. Two of the aspects of the report to which the judge referred were ones favorable to defendant  that he had no formal criminal record and had admitted his involvement voluntarily at a very early stage of the proceedings. Another  that by defendant's own statement he felt a certain justification for his conduct because Ava Gawronski broke her promise and went back on her word  was apparent from evidence that had been presented to the jury. Only the statement that Ms. Gawronski considered defendant dangerous, manipulative and cunning as reflected in the probation report may reflect evidence not directly considered by the jury. The trial judge had no need to rely on the opinion of Ms. Gawronski to reach such a conclusion, if in fact the judge agreed. The prosecutor had already argued to the jury, based on evidence presented to the jury, that defendant was dangerous and manipulative. There is no possibility that had the judge not read the probation report his ruling on the modification motion would have differed.