Opinion ID: 2621639
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Instructions on Penalty Determination Process

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court misled the jury about the sentence determination process when it instructed the jury immediately before penalty deliberations began and again later when it responded to jury questions during penalty deliberations, and that these errors violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and parallel provisions of the state Constitution. Before penalty deliberations began, the trial court instructed the jury on the penalty deliberation process in these words: Each of you shall consider, take into account, and be guided by the following factors in aggravation and mitigation: Number one, factor in aggravation, the circumstances of the crime of which the defendant has been convicted in the proceeding and the existence of the special circumstance found to have been true; Two, the presence or absence of criminal activity by the defendant other than the crimes for which he's been tried in the present proceeding which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence directed at a person. Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing that the defendant committed the following criminal activity which involved the express or implied use of force or violence or threat of force or violence. Before you may consider such criminal acts or activity as an aggravating circumstance in this case, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did, in fact, commit such criminal activity or acts. Now, these instructions do not refer to the evidence the defendant committed theft offenses as a juvenile. This criminal activity which I just referred to as  as violence or threat of violence concerns the violation Section 4502 of the Penal Code, which is possession of a weapon, to wit, the razor blades, being  while the defendant was being confined in the county jail. Now, again, in determining penalty, the jury shall consider, take into account, and be guided by the following factors in aggravation and mitigation, if possible. One mitigating factor is whether or not the offense was committed while the defendant was acting under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Two, whether or not at the time of the offense the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect or the effect of intoxication by alcohol and/or drugs. And any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime, even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime. In other words, in determining penalty, as mitigating, you may consider and take into account any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime, even though it may not be and is not a legal excuse for the crime. You may consider any other aspect of the defendant's character, his background, his history or record that he offers as a basis for a sentence less than death. Ladies and Gentlemen, you may consider sympathy, you may consider compassion for the defendant. Now, let me give you the complete list of factors to consider. In determining which penalty is to be imposed on the defendant, you shall consider all the evidence which has been received during any part of the trial of this case  guilt[ ], special circumstance, and penalty. And with reference to penalty, you shall take into account and consider and be guided by the following factors if you find the factors are applicable: Number one, the circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding and the existence of any special circumstance found to have been true. Two, the presence or absence of criminal activity by the defendant other than the crimes for which he is being tried which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence. And, again, that's the razor blades. Three, the presence or absence of any prior felony conviction other than the crimes for which the defendant has been tried in the present proceeding. Four, whether or not the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Five, whether or not the victims were participants in the defendant's homicidal conduct or consented to the homicidal act. Whether or not the offense was committed under circumstances which the defendant reasonably believed to be a moral justification or extenuation for his conduct. Whether or not the defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person. Whether or not at the time of the offense the capacity of the defendant 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 age of the defendant at the time of the offense. Whether or not the defendant was an accomplice to the offense and his participation in the commission of the offense was relatively minor. 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 a sentence less than death, whether or not related to the offense for which he is on trial. You must disregard any jury instruction I gave you in the first phase which conflicts with this principle. Defendant contends this instruction misled the jurors in two respects. In evaluating defendant's arguments, the relevant inquiry is whether, in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record, there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury was misled to defendant's prejudice. (See People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 687, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 28 P.3d 175; People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 677, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213; People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 663, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564, 828 P.2d 705.) As defendant correctly observes, section 190.3 lists 11 penalty factors that a jury in a capital case, in the statute's words, is to consider, take into account and be guided by in reaching its penalty verdict. Here, the trial court recited the complete list of penalty factors, but before doing so it made specific mention of five of the 11 factors. Defendant argues, first, that the double reference to five of the 11 factors erroneously suggested to the jury that only the five highlighted factors were relevant to this case. We disagree. Viewing the instruction as a whole, there was no reasonable likelihood the jury was misled in this fashion. The court expressly instructed the jury to consider, take into account, and be guided by any of the 11 factors that the jury found to be applicable. Next, defendant argues that the trial court erroneously stated or implied that section 190.3, factor (a), the circumstances of the capital offense and the existence of a special circumstance, could only be aggravating. The court did refer to factor (a) as a factor in aggravation. [Number one, factor in aggravation, the circumstances of the crime of which the defendant has been convicted in the proceeding and the existence of the special circumstance found to have been true.] Although a jury may regard some circumstances of a capital offense as mitigating (see People v. Bonillas (1989) 48 Cal.3d 757, 793, 257 Cal.Rptr. 895, 771 P.2d 844), the only such circumstances that defendant identifies here are that he committed the crimes during a crack cocaine binge and that he did not bring a weapon to the murder scene, suggesting lack of premeditation. But the trial court expressly instructed the jury to consider whether or not at the time of the offense the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect or the effect of intoxication by alcohol and/or drugs. The court also expressly instructed the jury to consider as mitigating ... any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime, even though it may not be and is not a legal excuse for the crime. Accordingly, there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury was misled to defendant's prejudice by the court's reference to factor (a) as an aggravating factor. Defendant also asserts that the trial court's instruction was erroneous because it suggested to the jury that section 190.3, factor (b) could only be aggravating. We have never decided whether factor (b) can only be a factor in aggravation or whether, instead, it can be either aggravating or mitigating. (See People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1038, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689, 857 P.2d 1099 [suggesting that factor (b) may be mitigating]; see generally People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 289-290, 221 Cal.Rptr. 794, 710 P.2d 861.) But even if we assume for the sake of argument that factor (b) can be mitigating, nothing in the trial court's instruction here suggested otherwise. The trial court expressly instructed the jury, twice, to consider the presence or absence  (italics added) of other criminal activity by defendant involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force or violence. Because the absence of other violent criminal activity by a capital defendant could not be aggravating, the jury would necessarily understand that, depending on the evidence, it could regard factor (b) as aggravating, mitigating, or neutral. (See People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 725, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 871, 3 P.3d 248.) During its penalty deliberations, the jury sent the trial court a note asking for a dictionary to obtain definitions of the terms aggravating and mitigating. After discussing the matter with counsel in chambers, the trial court responded to the request in these words: Under the law, I can't give you a dictionary because these are legal terms, and any reference work uses sometimes various synonyms or  Let me try it this way, and then after this, you can ask me a question. An aggravating factor is any fact, condition, or event not  attending the commission of the crime but not necessarily part of the crime which increases its guilt or enormity or adds to its injurious consequences which is above and beyond the elements of the crime itself. In other words, it is a fact, a condition, or event which attends the commission of the crime which wouldn't occur if it weren't for the crime but goes beyond the elements of the crime itself. These are the legal elements, that which constitutes murder. A mitigating circumstance is any fact or condition or event which as such does not constitute any justification or excuse for the crime but may be considered as an extenuating circumstance in determining the appropriateness of the penalty. In other words, you're deciding the appropriate punishment. You've already decided the elements of the crime  felony murder, first degree murder, malice, intent to kill, the effect, if any, of intoxication. You're now looking at punishment. You're now deciding what is an aggravating factor, what is a fact, condition, or event which attends the commission but is not necessarily part of the elements of the crime which increases its guilt or enormity or adds to the injurious consequences which is above and beyond the elements of the crime itself. Now, mitigating circumstance is any fact, condition, or event  childhood  any fact or event which though not an excuse and not a justification is and can be considered as an extenuation in determining which of the two punishments you feel is appropriate. Let's throw away the law for a second. Aggravate really means to make worse. It's a condition or circumstance or event that results from the crime that makes the crime worse. Therefore, you give the worse penalty. A mitigating factor is a factor that makes the crime less severe, not the fact that the crime wasn't committed. It's a thing or a circumstance or an event that alleviates or reduces or moderates the situation in terms of which is the appropriate punishment. In other words, you're looking at this in terms of which is the proper punishment, not in terms of the elements of the crime. Is there  There may be an event or circumstance which occurred as a result of the crime which aggravates it, makes it worse. Therefore, you give the worse penalty. There may be factors in mitigation which have nothing to do with a crime, but these factors you must consider in determining which punishment you consider. For example, if I am a judge, I look at a person in front of me. What is his conduct? Does it aggravate the crime itself? I look at the person. Did he have a good background? Does it mitigate the crime itself? In other words, you're looking at it in terms of which is the appropriate punishment. Defendant argues that the trial court's definition of mitigating as a factor that makes the crime less severe focused the jury's attention on the circumstances of the capital crimes rather than on other mitigating circumstances such as the absence of prior felony convictions or defendant's learning disabilities or other childhood hardships. We disagree. In addition to stating that a mitigating factor is one that makes the crime less severe, the trial court defined mitigating circumstance as any fact or condition or event which ... may be considered as an extenuating circumstance in determining the appropriateness of the penalty, as any fact or event which ... can be considered as an extenuation in determining which of the two punishments you feel is appropriate, and as a thing or a circumstance or an event that alleviates or reduces or moderates the situation in terms of which is the appropriate punishment. To preclude any possible misunderstanding, the court expressly advised the jury that [t]here may be factors in mitigation which have nothing to do with a crime.... Viewing the instruction as a whole, there was no reasonable likelihood the jury would be misled as to the scope of permissible mitigating considerations. Next, defendant argues that by twice stating that an aggravating circumstance is one that makes the crime worse and [t]herefore, you give the worse penalty, without also stating the jury should give the lesser penalty if it found a mitigating circumstance, the trial court's definitions were weighted toward imposition of the worse penalty and misled the jury into the view that the existence of any aggravating circumstance could justify the death penalty without regard to the weight of the mitigating circumstances. Again, we view the challenged instruction in light of the entire body of instruction that the trial court gave to the jury. On this point, the trial court gave these instructions: Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances does not mean a mere mechanical act of counting the number of factors on each side of an imaginary scale or the arbitrary assigning of weight to any particular factor. Any one factor may outweigh all the others. You are free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all the various factors you're permitted to consider. In weighing the various circumstances, you determine under the relevant evidence  you determine under the relevant evidence which penalty is justified and appropriate by considering the totality of the aggravating circumstances with the totality of the mitigating circumstances. If you should find that the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances, you must impose the punishment of life without possibility of parole. If you find that the aggravating circumstances do not outweigh the mitigating circumstances, that is, if they are equal, you must impose a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. If you find the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstance, you may impose a sentence of death, but to return a judgment of death, each of you must be persuaded that the aggravating evidence is so substantial when compared to the mitigating that it warrants death and not life without possibility of parole. Therefore, even if you conclude the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating, you may impose death, but you don't have to. Considering the court's entire charge, there is no reasonable likelihood the jury was misled to the view that any aggravating circumstance would require or permit a death verdict without regard to the existence or weight of mitigating circumstances.