Opinion ID: 2599854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Defendant's Motion for Modification

Text: Following the penalty verdict, the trial court entertained and denied the automatic motion for modification of the verdict pursuant to section 190.4, subdivision (e). Defendant contends generally that the trial court erred in denying the motion because the court failed to independently reweigh the evidence. More particularly, he argues the court failed to accord proper weight to his mitigating evidence, which showed he had been abused by his mother, that he suffered from chronic drug abuse precipitated by his tumultuous upbringing, and his intoxication at the time of [the] offense. In addition, he contends the court's error rendered the death sentence arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as state constitutional guarantees. As we explain, we disagree. Section 190.4, subdivision (e) provides: In every case in which the trier of fact has returned a verdict or finding imposing the death penalty, the defendant shall be deemed to have made an application for modification of such verdict or finding.... In ruling on the application, the judge shall review the evidence, consider, take into account, and be guided by the aggravating and mitigating circumstances referred to in Section 190.3, and shall make a determination as to whether the jury's findings and verdicts that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances are contrary to law or the evidence presented. The judge shall state on the record the reasons for his findings.  (Italics added.) The record in this case demonstrates the trial court was well aware of its authority and obligation to independently assess and evaluate the evidence. ( People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 46, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 894, 117 P.3d 591.) It first explained that its role in this matter is to reweigh the evidence of aggravating and mitigating factors and to determine whether in the court's independent judgment the weight of the evidence supports the jury's verdict. It then concluded that [t]he jury's assessment of the evidence that the factors in aggravation substantially outweigh the factors in mitigation and that death is warranted is, in the court's view, overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Further explaining its conclusion, the court noted that it has searched the record for factors in mitigation and I have to say that I am not sure I can begin to understand the arguments in mitigation on [defendant's] behalf. It found very little evidence [was] offered in this case suggesting that there are any factors in mitigation, but such evidence as was presented, the court has considered and the court believes that the jury was correct. When defense counsel emphasized the evidence of defendant's intoxication at the time of the crime was mitigating, the court responded: The court does not believe that there was ... evidence that on many occasions he drank and drank heavily and may have been [intoxicated on the day of the crimes]  there was some evidence which was tendered to suggest that he had been drinking on this day, but if I take that evidence  not all of that evidence was credible to the extent that people talked about his drinking on that day. There was not a suggestion in my mind that the drinking rose to the level where he would have been intoxicated. Finally, the court opined: [E]ven if I were to take [defendant's alleged intoxication] into account and consider that as accurate within the meaning of [section] 190.3, I don't think it would change the calculus as to whether or not the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating factors in this case. As is apparent, the trial court applied the correct standard and properly conducted an independent reweighing of the aggravating and mitigating evidence. That it did not find defendant's proffered mitigating evidence as persuasive as he would have liked does not undermine this conclusion. (See People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1267-1268, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 47 P.3d 225.) We, conclude the trial court properly performed its duty under section 190.4, subdivision (e).