Opinion ID: 1293219
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Age as Aggravating Factor

Text: (46) Defendant also notes that the prosecutor told the jury that defendant's age (56) should be considered an aggravating factor because this is a responsible, mature adult, ladies and gentlemen, somebody who should know better. Somebody who is mature and who thinks in a mature and meaningful fashion. We have stated that age should not of itself be considered an aggravating factor. ( Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 775; People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 798 [230 Cal. Rptr. 667, 726 P.2d 113].) Recently, however, we have held that in statutory sentencing [section 190.3,] factor (i) [age] is used as a metonym for any age-related matter suggested by the evidence or by common experience or morality that might reasonably inform the choice of penalty. Accordingly, counsel may argue any such age-related inference in every case. ( People v. Lucky (1988) 45 Cal.3d 259, 302 [247 Cal. Rptr. 1, 753 P.2d 1052].) Our review of the record reveals the prosecutor was placing more emphasis on defendant's maturity or sophistication, than on the lack of a mitigating factor. Accordingly, we find no error.