Opinion ID: 2639408
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Refusal of requested definition of mitigating circumstance and requested instruction as to which factors are mitigating and which aggravating

Text: The trial court defined mitigating circumstance for the jury with the language of CALJIC No. 8.88, as follows: A mitigating circumstance is any fact, condition or event which as such, does not constitute a justification or excuse for the crime in question, but may be considered as an extenuating circumstance in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty. The defense requested, and the trial court refused, an expanded definition of mitigating circumstance. [25] Noting we approved the requested instruction in People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 354, footnote 20, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846, and People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pages 705-706, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640, defendant assigns this ruling as error under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. Although the trial court would not have erred in giving the requested instruction, its refusal to do so did not constitute error. The pattern instruction adequately defined the concept of mitigation for the jury, and the requested instruction thus would have been largely duplicative. Defendant further contends the trial court denied him his state and federal constitutional rights to a reliable penalty determination and due process of law in refusing to give his proposed jury instructions Nos. 17, 18 and 19 specifying which sentencing factors are mitigating and which aggravating, and listing numerous factual circumstances the jury might consider in mitigation. [26] But as defendant acknowledges, we have previously rejected this claim (e.g., People v. Kipp, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 380-381, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 716, 956 P.2d 1169); he advances no persuasive reason why we should reconsider the point. As the trial court concluded, moreover, defendant's proposed jury instruction No. 17 was duplicative of CALJIC No. 8.85, proposed jury instruction No. 18 posed the risk of confusing the jury with its cross-references to subparagraphs contained in other proposed instructions, and proposed jury instruction No. 19 was clearly argumentative. All three proposed jury instructions thus were properly refused.