Opinion ID: 1405837
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Irrelevant aggravating evidence.

Text: (14) Defendant complains the trial court instructed improperly at the penalty phase that the jury should consider all of the evidence which has been received in any part of the trial of this case. He also urges the court erred in refusing his proffered instruction limiting the aggravating factors the jury could consider. He asserts the jury was thus improperly encouraged to consider in aggravation of penalty certain unflattering evidence presented at the guilt phase (such as his nonviolent escapes while awaiting trial on the capital charges, his drug use, and his illicit lifestyle), which evidence bore on no enumerated aggravating factor. [15] Even if error occurred, however (see People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1324 [248 Cal. Rptr. 834, 756 P.2d 221] ( Michael Allen Williams ); Boyd, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 772-779), it was harmless by any standard. The jury was told that it  shall take into consideration and be guided by the enumerated factors of aggravation and mitigation, if applicable. (Italics added.) Construing the instructions together, reasonable jurors would conclude they were to consider only the enumerated factors, but could draw upon all phases of the trial for evidence in that regard. Moreover, the penalty verdict cannot have been affected by improper consideration of any guilt phase evidence. Defendant's escapes from custody were relevant at the penalty phase to rebut testimony by his expert witnesses that he was a good confinement risk. Defendant's concern that the instruction called attention to his drug-centered lifestyle is ironic in view of his effort to persuade the jury that his background, including his difficulty with drugs, was a mitigating factor. Under these circumstances, the asserted instructional error was plainly harmless. ( Michael Allen Williams, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1324.)