Opinion ID: 1345760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Jury's understanding of sentencing responsibility.

Text: (18) Defendant claims the court committed error by instructing, in the unadorned language of the 1978 death penalty law, that the jury shall impose the death penalty if persuaded the aggravating factors outweigh those in mitigation. (ง 190.3; CALJIC, former No. 8.84.2 (4th ed. 1979).) We have observed that in particular circumstances this language, unless further explained, might be misunderstood to require a mandatory and mechanical penalty determination, devoid of normative discretion to decide the appropriate penalty under all the circumstances. (E.g., People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1276-1278 [232 Cal. Rptr. 849, 729 P.2d 115]; People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 544, fn. 17 [220 Cal. Rptr. 637, 709 P.2d 440].) In Brown, supra, we therefore called for clarifying instructions in future cases. We stated we would examine the individual merits of each pre- Brown trial in which an unadorned shall/outweigh instruction was given to determine whether, under all the particular facts, a reasonable jury may have been misled. (40 Cal.3d at pp. 544, fn. 17 & 545, fn. 19.) We see no such possibility here. In the first place, the court instructed that any evidence of an aggravating factor was to be disregarded unless the jury unanimously found it true beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the jury was told to consider in mitigation not only the specific factors listed, but any other aspect of the Defendant's character or record that the Defendant offers as a basis for [a] sentence less than death. [26] These instructions implied that the penalty determination required extreme responsibility and reliability in the evaluation of aggravating factors, yet was a broad inquiry demanding sympathetic concern for all subjectively extenuating factors of defendant's life and character. (Cf. Melton, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 761.) More importantly, the prosecutor, despite occasional forays into mechanical and mandatory language, made clear that the jury was to arrive at the appropriate penalty by weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors in light of their own consciences. Early in his argument-in-chief, the prosecutor did say the ultimate decision was obvious once the aggravating and mitigating factors had been weighed. [27] Moreover, in his rebuttal, he suggested that if aggravating and mitigating circumstances were merely counted, the former would prevail. However, the prosecutor also emphasized that the law did not make it as simple as counting, but required a subjective weighing process in which the jurors themselves decided how much weight to give each factor. [28] Moreover, the prosecutor pursued the overall theme that death was the penalty defendant deserved for his crimes. The prosecutor acknowledged that the jury was entitled to show defendant sympathy and mercy, though suggesting that compassion was inappropriate in light of defendant's callousness to his victim. [29] Defendant claims the prosecutor tried to persuade the jury it had no moral responsibility for a death verdict. However, the context is otherwise; the prosecutor merely indicated the jury should resist defense efforts to equate the moral burden of a death judgment with that attending the murder itself. [30] Defense counsel's argument reinforced the notion that the penalty determination was normative and subjective. As counsel declared, ... When it comes down to judging [the relevant sentencing] factors, balancing those factors, the law's quite vague in my opinion. [ถ] The critical term is outweighed. Does aggravation outweigh mitigation. And I think the law fails to give you much definition at this point. I think a lot is left up to you. Counsel stressed the regard expressed for defendant by relatives and neighbors, argued there was lingering doubt of a robbery motive for the murder, and urged that a death verdict might repeat defendant's mistake of presuming the right to take life. Under these circumstances, we cannot imagine a reasonable jury would believe it should merely evaluate the aggravating and mitigating factors in some mechanical way, without deciding what penalty defendant deserved under all the evidence. We see no basis for reversal.