Opinion ID: 2636899
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Instruction as to section 190.3, factor (d).

Text: Appellant argues that one or more jurors might have believed that his mental illness was not mitigating because it was not extreme. He contends that instructing the jury that it could consider any other circumstance in his character, background, history or mental condition that the defendant offers in mitigation (see § 190.3, 1st par.; see also factor (k)) was not sufficient to offset the misleading impact of the instruction following section 190.3, factor (d) that the jury should consider: Whether or not the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Appellant concedes that we have rejected this argument, but notes that in doing so in People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 443-444, 276 Cal.Rptr. 731, 802 P.2d 221, we said we would presume the jury understood the instructions correctly, barring evidence to the contrary. Although appellant disputes the logic of our conclusion, he offers no such evidence. The record does not, as he claims, demonstrate that the jury failed to give proper weight to the evidence of appellant's mental and emotional difficulties. Nothing in this record or in appellant's argument persuades us that we should reconsider our conclusion that it is not error to give only the standard instructions. (See People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 709, 55 Cal. Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640.)