Opinion ID: 1433861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: Refusal to instruct on sympathy

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erroneously refused instructions informing the jurors in various terms that sympathy, pity, compassion, and mercy were factors in deciding the appropriate sentence. We find no error. We have repeatedly held that a jury told it may sympathetically consider all mitigating evidence need not also be expressly instructed it may exercise `mercy.' [Citations.] ( People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 840,42 Cal.Rptr.2d 543, 897 P.2d 481; see also People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 163-164, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 554, 833 P.2d 561.) Here, the trial court gave the standard instruction to take into account any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime and any sympathetic or other aspect of the defendant's character or record that the defendant offers as a basis for a sentence less than death, whether or not related to the offense for which he is on trial. The court also told the jury to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various factors you are permitted to consider. No additional instruction was required. [15]