Opinion ID: 2636899
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consideration of all evidence.

Text: The jury was instructed in the language of former CALJIC No. 8.84 that it should consider all of the evidence received at any phase of the trial except as hereafter instructed. The jury was also told twice that it shall consider, take into account, and be guided by the statutory factors relevant to the penalty decision. (§ 190.3.) Appellant contends that the first of these instructions permitted the jury to consider all of the evidence received during the earlier stages of the trial regardless of whether evidence was relevant to one of the statutory factors. The second instruction, he claims, was not sufficient to restrict consideration of evidence that was not relevant. While an instruction that evidence should be considered only if it was relevant to one of the statutory factors would be proper, appellant did not request such an instruction and the court was not required to give one sua sponte. ( People v. Champion, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 947, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 547, 891 P.2d 93.) Moreover, the evidence introduced at the sanity phase that appellant identifies as irrelevant was in fact relevant to several statutory factors  whether appellant acted under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance, whether defendant believed he had a moral justification or extenuation for his conduct, and whether his capacity to conform his conduct to the law was impaired by mental disease. (§ 190.3, factors (d), (f), and (h).) Much of the other evidence, specifically that to which the prosecutor referred in closing argument, could be considered in rebuttal to the mitigating evidence presented at the penalty phase.