Opinion ID: 1351343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Ruling on the motion to modify the verdict.

Text: Section 190.4, subdivision (e), provides that in every case in which a death verdict is returned, the defendant is deemed to apply for modification of the verdict. The trial judge explained his reasons for denying that motion. After reviewing the evidence, he said, I'll find that the offense was not committed while the defendant then was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbances. There was no moral justification or extenuation for his conduct and he did not believe there was any. He was not acting under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person. And he certainly had the capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. [¶] Consider the age of the defendant, in his mid-forties. Considering all of these [factors], it's obvious that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. Defense counsel asked: Does the court find that the age was an aggravating circumstance? The judge replied: The age is an aggravating circumstance. He's 45 years old. He certainly ought to have the maturity to avoid the type of conduct that he engaged in at his age. Counsel asked about mitigation, and the judge replied: I really don't find any mitigation based upon the evidence presented because I have found that he is a person with few redeeming qualities and has very little to contribute. (66) Defendant contends that the judge, by treating neutral or inapplicable factors as aggravating, made the same mistake that the prosecutor made in his closing argument. (See discussion in part IV.K, ante. ) But the judge's comments are not that clear. He did not say expressly that he considered the absence of mental disturbance, moral justification, duress, or inability to conform to legal requirements as aggravating considerations. His statement that [c]onsidering all of these factors the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating could be true even if he viewed these factors as inapplicable. And the judge's comments on age suggest that what he considered aggravating was defendant's relative maturity, not his age as such. (See People v. Lucky (1988) 45 Cal.3d 259, 302 [247 Cal. Rptr. 1, 753 P.2d 1052].) In any event, past decisions have held that a remand is unwarranted when [t]he statement of decision makes apparent that the [trial] court did not deem the issue of penalty to be a close one. ( People v. Hamilton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1187 [259 Cal. Rptr. 701, 774 P.2d 730]; see People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d 432, 462.) The trial judge in the case before us reviewed the extensive aggravating evidence, especially defendant's lengthy criminal history, and found little or nothing in mitigation. It is apparent that he did not consider the penalty issue to be a close one that might hinge upon the classification of the statutory factors. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment and penalty imposed by the superior court.