Opinion ID: 2525107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 36

Heading: The trial court's reweighing the evidence

Text: Defendant moved to modify the verdict in accordance with section 190.4, subdivision (e). After hearing argument, the trial court addressed the merits of the motion in great detail. The court began by noting its statutory obligation to review the entire record and determine whether the jury's judgment of death is consistent with both the facts and the law. After reviewing the evidence and the section 190.3 factors, the court observed, My duty then is to apply the same rules that the jury applied in determining whether the judgments of death were appropriate. [¶] In this case I believe that the circumstances in aggravation are so strong, so overwhelming in contrast with the really minimal evidence of mitigation that the jury verdict was appropriate. [¶] It was consistent with the facts. It was consistent with the law. [¶] And I do specifically find that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that as to counts 1 and 3 the jury verdict was appropriate, and this court respectfully declines the opportunity to modify the jury's verdicts. In reviewing defendant's automatic section 190.4, subdivision (e) motion, the trial judge's function is not to make an independent and de novo penalty determination, but rather to independently reweigh the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and then to determine whether, in the judge's independent judgment, the weight of the evidence supports the jury verdict. ( People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1045, 264 Cal. Rptr. 386, 782 P.2d 627.) The above statements prove the trial court fulfilled its duty.