Opinion ID: 1345745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 30

Heading: Evidence of mental or emotional disturbance.

Text: (24) The court instructed the jury in the language of factor (d) of section 190.3, that in making a penalty determination the jury should consider whether or not the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Defendant contends that this instruction impermissibly restricted the consideration of mitigating evidence of mental or emotional disturbance that was less than extreme, and thereby violated his right under the Eighth Amendment to have the jury consider any aspect of his character and background that might be relevant to the appropriate penalty. ( Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982) 455 U.S. 104, 110-113 [71 L.Ed.2d 1, 8-10, 102 S.Ct. 869]; Lockett v. Ohio (1978) 438 U.S. 586, 604 [57 L.Ed.2d 973, 989-990, 98 S.Ct. 2954].) Neither this instruction nor any argument by the prosecutor, however, suggested that only extreme mental or emotional disturbance should be considered. Other instructions advised the jury that it should 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 aspect of the defendant's character or record that the defendant offers as a basis for a sentence less than death. It is clear in this case the jury fully understood that all of the mitigating evidence offered by defendant could and should be considered. (See People v. Murtishaw, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 1033; People v. Morales (1989) 48 Cal.3d 527, 567 [257 Cal. Rptr. 64, 770 P.2d 244]; People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 776 [239 Cal. Rptr. 82, 739 P.2d 1250].)