Opinion ID: 1182062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Failure to Give Defendant's Instruction Deleting Extreme From Mental Illness

Text: (39) The trial court denied defendant's request that it instruct the jury to consider as a mitigating circumstance whether the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of any mental or emotional disturbance.  (Italics added.) In denying the request, the trial court reasoned the matter was covered by its instruction, based on section 190.03, factor (d), listing as a factor to be considered in the penalty assessment: Whether or not the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental and emotional distress.  (Italics added.) We have rejected arguments similar to defendant's in numerous cases, observing in part that section 190.03, factor (k) (the factor (k) instruction), allows the jury to consider a virtually unlimited range of mitigating circumstances. ( People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 803-804; People v. Medina, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 908; People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 776.) The jury was instructed in accordance with section 190.3, factor (k) that it could consider any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime and any sympathetic or other aspect of defendant's character, background or record that the defendant offers as a basis for a sentence less than death, whether or not related to the offense for which he is on trial. You must disregard any jury instruction given to you in the guilt or innocence phase of this trial which conflicts with this principle. In view of this instruction, there was no reasonable likelihood the jury did not fully and fairly consider defendant's mental illness as a possible mitigating factor. ( People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 804.)