Opinion ID: 1293219
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factor (k) Error

Text: The jury was given an expanded [section 190.3,] factor (k) instruction similar to the one prescribed in People v. Easley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 858, 878, footnote 10 [196 Cal. Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813]. The jury was directed 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 other factor proffered by the defendant as a factor in mitigation of the penalty, including his character.  (Italics added.) (41) Defendant claims that prosecutorial argument misled the jury into believing that it could not assign mitigating weight to defendant's character evidence. We conclude, however, that a reasonable jury would not have been misled about its duty to consider defendant's mitigating character and background in determining penalty. In addition to the instruction noted above, the court also instructed the jury: In your deliberation you may consider pity, sympathy and mercy for the defendant in deciding the appropriate penalty. However, you may not be governed by mere conjecture, prejudice, or public opinion. We believe that by instructing the jury both under the expanded factor (k) and sympathy language above, the court adequately informed the jury that it could consider defendant's character evidence in mitigation. Moreover, as in our Brown discussion above, any doubt about the jury's understanding is dispelled by both counsel's arguments. The prosecutor told the jury that the instruction gave it some basis upon which to reduce the seriousness of the offense.... After viewing the record as a whole, we are satisfied the prosecutor's argument simply informed the jury that it could consider and then reject defendant's character evidence as a mitigating factor or afford it little weight in determining the appropriate penalty. ( People v. Odle (1988) 45 Cal.3d 386, 419 [247 Cal. Rptr. 137, 754 P.2d 184], and cases cited.) In addition, defense counsel, after describing his bleak background as an orphan passed from family to family to family ... probably subject to some abuse, told the jury that it could consider sympathy and pity for the defendant. Under these facts and in light of defense counsel's arguments, we cannot conclude that the jury was misled about its duty to consider, as mitigating, evidence of defendant's character.