Opinion ID: 2543191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Mitigating Factors

Text: The jury was instructed under a modified version of section 190.3, factor (k) to consider any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime, and any sympathetic or other aspect of the defendant's character or record that the defendant proffers as a basis for mitigation. (See People v. Easley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 858, 879, fn. 10, 196 Cal.Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813.) Defendant contends the trial court improperly refused requested jury instructions that would have specified the sort of evidence that can be considered in mitigation under factor (k). As defense counsel acknowledges, this court has rejected the argument that the Constitution requires additional jury instructions elaborating on modified factor (k). (See People v. Catlin, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 173-174, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 P.3d 357 and cases cited therein.) Defendant advances no persuasive argument for reconsidering this position.