Opinion ID: 2640086
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Effect of Ex Parte In Camera Meetings on Modification Motion

Text: Defendant registers a second complaint on appeal about the 10 ex parte in camera proceedings that occurred between the trial court and codefendant Lee's counsel, insisting they impaired his federal and state constitutional rights at sentencing (i.e., to due process and to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment). He assumes that Lee's counsel, Hall, presented adverse extraneous information about defendant during these proceedings, that such information tainted the court's view of the evidence in aggravation and mitigation, and that the court erroneously denied his automatic motion to modify the penalty verdict under section 190.4, subdivision (e) (section 190.4(e)) as a result. The primary concern seems to be that the court ignored mitigating evidence and overemphasized aggravating evidence. As a preliminary matter, we agree with the Attorney General that defendant has forfeited his challenge to the section 190.4(e) ruling by failing to object below. Defendant cannot object for the first time on appeal where, as here, the hearing, which occurred in 1998, postdated the finality of People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 1013 [13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 839 P.2d 984]. ( Lewis and Oliver, supra, 39 Cal.4th 970, 1064.) On the merits, the record of the section 190.4(e) hearing belies any claim of error. In ruling on the motion, the trial court applied the correct legal standard. It referred more than once to its duty to make an independent determination concerning the propriety of the death penalty, and to independently reweigh the evidence in aggravation and mitigation and determine whether, in the court's own judgment, the weight of the evidence supports the jury verdict. ( People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 891 [129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 62 P.3d 1].) In reviewing the evidence in mitigation, the trial court acknowledged that, until the time of the capital crime, defendant had lived a law abiding life, and had done some good things. The court also observed that the outcome at sentencing might have been different had the murders actually occurred during a lengthy and vituperative [family] argument in which defendant suddenly grabbed a knife and killed Sonia and Doris in a blinding rage. However, the court made clear in independently assessing the evidence, that the death verdict was amply supported by the planned and premeditated nature of the murders, and the cruel and brutal manner in which they were committed. Along these lines, the court said, the premeditation in this case was exceptional. It was calculated. It was not in any sense emotionally compelled. Also critical in the court's view was that defendant destroyed his own family. The court emphasized that [h]e's deprived [his son] Michael of his mother and he's deprived Michael of his father, namely, Mr. Carasi himself. He made this child an orphan. And in his presence. As to the 10 closed proceedings to which defendant now objects, we note that no discussion about the appropriate penalty for either defendant appears in the relevant transcripts, most of which are still sealed. The trial court also made no mention during the section 190.4(e) hearing to such proceedings or to its interactions with Lee's counsel at any point in time. Nor did the court deny the modification motion based on aggravating evidence not admitted at trial. Thus, our review of the record leads us to conclude that the court carefully and properly performed its duty in denying the motion to modify the death verdict under section 190.4(e). We reject defendant's contrary claim.