Opinion ID: 2507466
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Instructions on Section 190.3 Sentencing Factors

Text: Defendant also challenges the constitutionality of CALJIC No. 8.85, which outlines section 190.3's mitigating and aggravating factors a jury considers in determining whether to impose a sentence of death or life without parole. He contends that the application of section 190.3, factor (a) (circumstances of the crime) through CALJIC No. 8.85 does not sufficiently narrow the class of death-eligible offenders, resulting in the arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty. Moreover, he argues that the instruction as given unconstitutionally (1) failed to delete inapplicable sentencing factors; (2) failed to instruct that statutory mitigating factors are relevant solely as mitigators; (3) included restrictive adjectives (extreme, substantial) to define certain mitigating factors, which purportedly impeded the jurors' consideration of mitigating evidence; and (4) failed to require written findings as to aggravating factors the jury found and considered in imposing a death sentence, thus precluding meaningful appellate review. (See U.S. Const., 5th, 6th, 8th & 14th Amends.) We have repeatedly rejected each of these challenges. ( People v. Geier, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 619-620, 61 Cal. Rptr.3d 580, 161 P.3d 104 [citing cases].) Specifically, the breadth of the circumstances of the crime factor (§ 190.3, factor (a)) does not result in the arbitrary and capricious application of the death penalty. ( People v. Smith, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 373, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 554, 107 P.3d 229.) Also, the trial court did not err in failing to delete inapplicable sentencing factors ( People v. Stitely, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 574, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 108 P.3d 182); the instruction was not deficient in failing to tell the jury that mitigating factors were relevant only to mitigation ( People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 530, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 575, 101 P.3d 478); including certain adjectives did not impede jurors from considering mitigating evidence ( People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1217, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130); and failing to require a written statement of the jury's findings did not preclude meaningful appellate review ( People v. Stitely, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 574, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 108 P.3d 182). Finally, CALJIC No. 8.85 as given did not violate defendant's equal protection rights. ( People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 754, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 485, 115 P.3d 1145 [the availability of procedural protections such as jury unanimity or written factual findings in noncapital cases does not signify that California's death penalty statute violates equal protection principles]; see also People v. Cornwell (2005) 37 Cal.4th 50, 103, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 117 P.3d 622.) Defendant identifies no basis for us to reconsider these holdings.