Opinion ID: 2599941
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Exclusion of Mitigating and Rebuttal Evidence

Text: Defendant challenges the trial court's ruling on the admissibility of numerous items of proposed mitigating or rebuttal evidence. We find no abuse of discretion in these rulings. We have concluded previously that evidence of the prison conditions for those sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is not constitutionally or statutorily relevant as a factor in mitigation. ( People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 94 Cal. Rptr.2d 17, 995 P.2d 152; People v. Quartermain (1997) 16 Cal.4th 600, 632, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 609, 941 P.2d 788.) The trial court did not err in precluding evidence reflecting that the prosecutor was not seeking the death penalty against defendant's accomplices, because the sentence received by an accomplice is not constitutionally or statutorily relevant as a factor in mitigation. ( People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 857, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 840, 996 P.2d 1152.) Defendant was permitted to introduce evidence establishing that he had attempted to plead guilty and accept punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, but he contends the trial court erred in ruling that he could not introduce evidence of the circumstances surrounding the plea negotiations, including the trial court's and the prosecutor's willingness at one point to consider a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding such evidence. As we previously have held, evidence of this sort does not bear upon defendant's character, prior record, or the circumstances of his offense and thus, [does] not constitute mitigating evidence. ( People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 989, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122, 846 P.2d 704.) Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in excluding George Perez's admission that he was deeply involved in the murder. Evidence of this admission was cumulative, because the jury already had heard, during the guilt phase, evidence demonstrating that George Perez and others were involved in the murder. Perez's admission was not relevant mitigating evidence, because it did not address his level of culpability in comparison with that of defendant and was not inconsistent with the prosecution's theory that defendant was the leader of the group and personally had shot and killed the victim.