Opinion ID: 1351576
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Defendant's Verdict-modification Application

Text: Defendant made an application for modification of the verdict of death under Penal Code section 190.4, subdivision (e) (hereafter section 190.4(e)). At the hearing on the motion, the court allowed relatives of the victims to make statements with respect to sentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1191.1. Also, it noted that it had read and considered a presentence report, which contained similar statements. The victims' relatives asked for a sentence of death, and described such matters as the victims' personal characteristics, the emotional impact of the crimes on their family, and the opinions of family members about defendant and his crimes. The court proceeded to deny the application and to impose the ultimate sanction. Defendant contends that the court erred. At the threshold he asserts that the court considered the statements of the victims' relatives, and the People assert the opposite. For purposes here, we shall assume that the court did in fact consider the statements in question. Defendant first claims that the assumed consideration of the statements of the victims' relatives amounted to error of federal constitutional dimension under Booth v. Maryland, supra, 482 U.S. 496, and South Carolina v. Gathers, supra, 490 U.S. 805. We disagree. (36) We acknowledge that read together, those decisions broadly hold that it is generally violative of a criminal defendant's rights under the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment to present information concerning such matters as the victim's personal characteristics, the emotional impact of the crime on his family, and the opinions of family members about the crime and the criminal  the very kind of information presented in the statements under review. But we have concluded that the broad holding of Booth and Gathers does not extend to proceedings relating to the application for modification of a verdict of death under section 190.4(e). (See People v. Jennings (1988) 46 Cal.3d 963, 994 [251 Cal. Rptr. 278, 760 P.2d 475].) [15] (37) Defendant then claims that the assumed consideration of the statements of the victims' relatives amounted to error under state statutory law. Here we agree. Under section 190.4(e), the court reviews the evidence presented to the jury ( People v. Williams, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1329)  which does not include the statements in question (or, for that matter, the presentence report). We turn now from the error to its consequences. The ruling must be set aside, the penalty judgment vacated, and the cause remanded for reconsideration of the verdict-modification application if and only if the error was prejudicial. (See, e.g., People v. Ramirez (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1158, 1201-1202 [270 Cal. Rptr. 286, 791 P.2d 965].) The question of prejudice is apparently resolved under the so-called reasonable possibility test  i.e., is there a reasonable possibility that the error affected the decision? (See id. at p. 1202.) Applying that test, we find no prejudice. In support of its ruling, the court provided an extensive statement of reasons. From that statement it is manifest that the court made its decision solely in light of the applicable law and the relevant evidence. We assume, as noted above, that the court considered the statements of the victims' relatives. And we concede that those statements were quite moving. But on this record  and especially in view of the reasons expressed  we cannot conclude that the court actually took those statements into account in making its decision. Indeed, it appears that the court viewed the statements of the victims' relatives in the nature of formal allocutions addressing the question of sentencing broadly, and not as evidence or argument bearing on the verdict-modification application itself. Moreover, we cannot conclude that the statements would have affected the outcome even if they had been taken into account. It was the Court's personal assessment ... that the factors in aggravation  which plainly did not include the statements in question  beyond all reasonable doubt far outweigh those matters in mitigation.... Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there is not a reasonable possibility that the error affected the ruling.