Opinion ID: 1233910
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: consideration of probation report

Text: (20) Although defendant has not raised any issue with regard to the trial court's denial of his application to modify the verdict pursuant to section 190.4, subdivision (e) (hereafter section 190.4(e)), our review of the record indicates that the trial court, in considering the application, erred in one significant respect. In ruling on the application, the trial court expressly stated that, in addition to considering the evidence that had been presented at the guilt and penalty phases and the argument of defense counsel, it had also read and considered the probation report that had been prepared at the conclusion of the penalty trial. As we explained in People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1329 [248 Cal. Rptr. 834, 756 P.2d 221], however, [u]nder section 190.4(e), the court reviews the evidence presented to the jury  which, of course, does not include the probation report. (See also People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 273-274 [253 Cal. Rptr. 55, 763 P.2d 906].) Although the court erred in this regard, we conclude that in this case the error does not warrant the vacating of the judgment and a remand for a new ruling under section 190.4(e). While the probation report did refer to a number of incidents in defendant's juvenile record that had not been presented to the jury, and while the trial court, in denying the application for modification, briefly adverted to some of these incidents and to defendant's general failure to benefit from his interaction with the juvenile justice system, the court's comments as a whole indicate that, unlike the situation in People v. Lewis, ante, 262, 286-287 [266 Cal. Rptr. 834, 786 P.2d 892], those incidents did not play a significant role in the court's denial of the application. In articulating its reasons for denying the application, the court placed heaviest reliance on both the circumstances of the current offenses and defendant's past violent sexual misconduct, which the court felt demonstrated [] past and present aggressive and violent tendencies towards females, which basically satisfies all sexual desires. The court also noted that defendant had been on parole both at the time he committed his receiving stolen property offense and when he committed the present offenses. After reviewing the various statutory factors, the court observed that, in its view, it's unfortunately not close when you look at all the circumstances in aggravation and mitigation; indeed, the court indicated at one point that, in its view, the circumstances of the capital offense just standing alone ... outweigh the mitigating circumstances.... Under these circumstances, we cannot say that there is a reasonable possibility that the court's improper consideration of the probation report affected its section 190.4(e) ruling. (See, e.g., People v. Williams, supra, 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1329-1330.)
The judgment is affirmed in all respects.