Opinion ID: 2598792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Disregarding mitigating evidence

Text: Defendant also contends the court, in denying the modification motion, erred in disregarding evidence of defendant's mental disturbance, including expert testimony that defendant suffered from attention deficit disorder and a passive-aggressive personality disorder. The record shows that in reviewing the list of statutory factors under section 190.3, the court made this comment regarding factor (d): `D,' whether or not he was under extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the offense. That may have some merit, but there was no evidence of extreme mental duress [sic]. There was certainly evidence of some emotional disturbance during the time of this rather bizarre behavior and some statements that were a close enough call where I couldn't put that in any particular category. Later, in evaluating factor (k) of section 190.3, the court commented that Factor 'K,' any other circumstance, I found that to be a mitigating circumstance based on his childhood and what some of the things he went through as he was being raised. The court concluded, however, that On balance, and weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the court believes the factors in aggravation outweigh the factors in mitigation, particularly as to the crime itself. Defendant contends the court erred in failing to mention or consider the evidence of his nonextreme mental disorder under section 190.3, factor (k), as a circumstance that would extenuate the gravity of his crime. It is true that factor (k) does allow consideration of nonextreme mental or emotional conditions. ( People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 208, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 762, 878 P.2d 521, and cases cited.) It is also true that the trial court, in the present case, did not include defendant's mental disorder evidence in its discussion of the mitigating evidence. But we have held that the court, in reciting its reasons for denying the modification motion, need not discuss all evidence the defendant submitted as supposedly mitigating. ( People v. Seaton, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 694, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 28 P.3d 175; People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 192, 51 Cal. Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.) In any event, assuming the court erred in not considering defendant's expert evidence as potentially mitigating, no reasonable possibility exists that the error affected the court's ruling. (See People v. Whitt (1990) 51 Cal.3d 620, 660-661, 274 Cal.Rptr. 252, 798 P.2d 849; People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th 119, 192, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 386, 931 P.2d 960.) The court had heard, and certainly was aware of, defendant's evidence, yet it ultimately believed the aggravating evidence justified the jury's death verdict.