Opinion ID: 2543191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 30

Heading: Trial Court's Consideration of Probation Report Prior to the Ruling on the Section 190.4 Motion.

Text: The trial court read defendant's probation report prior to ruling on the automatic motion to modify the penalty pursuant to section 190.4 and defendant claims prejudicial error in violation of his statutory and due process rights. As we have stated: In ruling on an application for modification of the verdict, the trial court may only rely on evidence that was before the jury. [Citation.] Therefore, the better procedure is to rule on the application for modification before reading the probation report. ( People v. Navarette (2003) 30 Cal.4th 458, 526, 133 Cal. Rptr.2d 89, 66 P.3d 1182.) But reading the probation report before ruling on the section 190.4 motion is not prejudicial error when nothing in the record suggests the court considered or relied on the probation report ... when ruling on the application for modification. ( Ibid. ) In the present case there is no suggestion the trial court considered or relied upon the probation report in making its ruling. On the contrary, when the prosecution referred to material in the report while arguing the section 190.4 motion, the trial court sustained the defense's objection, stating that he could not consider the probation report in reviewing this matter. The court also alluded vaguely to other convictions of defendant while explaining this ruling on the section 190,4 motion, and defendant contends those convictions were ones that were only set forth in the probation report. Whether or not that is the case, the trial court made clear that it was not going to find those convictions to be factors in aggravation because they did not involve violence. We conclude there was no prejudice resulting from the trial court's prior reading of the probation report.