Opinion ID: 2507854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instructions Concerning Mental Impairment

Text: The jury was instructed in accordance with CALJIC No. 8.85, which included the following description of section 190.3, factor (h): Whether or not at the time of the offense the capacity of the defendants to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect or the effects of intoxication. The trial court refused to append the following paragraph, submitted by defendant as Special Instruction No. 12: The mental impairment to which this instruction refers is not limited to evidence which excuses the crime or reduces the defendant's culpability but includes any degree of mental defect, disease or intoxication which the jury determines is of a nature that death should not be imposed. [¶] A mental disease or defect may apply to a person diagnosed as having an anti-social personality disorder. We find no error. In addition to factor (h) as given, the jury was instructed under factor (d) to consider whether the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time the offense was committed and under factor (k) to 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 the defendant's character or record [that the defendant offers] as a basis for mitigation. These instructions clearly told the jury it could consider  any mitigating, sympathetic, or extenuating circumstances, including any mental defect, disease, or intoxication. ( People v. Ervin (2000) 22 Cal.4th 48, 98, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 623, 990 P.2d 506; see also People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1102-1103, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40; accord, Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 376-377, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316.)