Opinion ID: 2633286
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Argument Regarding Aggravating Factors

Text: The prosecutor argued Powell's vulnerability, defendant's breach of trust, and defendant's pleasure from stabbing were separate aggravating factors under section 190.3, factor (a). He also used the same aggravating circumstances language when he discussed other crimes evidence admissible under section 190.3, factor (b). As a result, defendant contends the prosecutor's use of the term aggravating circumstance confused jurors about the weighing process and encouraged them to apply factor (a), the circumstances of the crime, three different times in three different ways. Ultimately, the prosecutor's argument had the effect of skewing the weight accorded this factor and created the risk of an arbitrary or unreliable death verdict. The People initially assert that defendant failed to object to the prosecutor's argument on this basis at trial. Defendant counters that such a basis was inherent in his objection that the above circumstances of the crime described by the prosecutor were not aggravating circumstances under section 190.3. We think this objection was sufficient to preserve the issue. But the claim fails on the merits. Defendant fails to cite anything in the record that suggests the jury was confused by the prosecutor's argument or the instructions it was given. The prosecutor merely suggested to jurors how they could consider each piece of evidence under the specified statutory factors. In addition, the court instructed the jury under former CALJIC No. 8.88 that [t]he weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances does not mean a mere mechanical counting of factors on each side of an imaginary scale, or the arbitrary assignment of weights to any of them; and that in determining which penalty was justified, it should consider the totality of the aggravating circumstances with the totality of the mitigating circumstances. In sum, because the prosecutor did not urge the jury to double-count or triple-count the circumstances of the crime in weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the possibility of prejudice is remote. ( People v. Ochoa, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 457, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78.) In light of the prosecutor's remarks and the standard instructions about the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances given in this case, we find no reasonable likelihood the jurors were misled or confused in the manner defendant suggests or otherwise applied the instructions in an illegally improper manner. ( People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 289-290, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 532, 6 P.3d 193.)