Opinion ID: 1801755
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Instruction concerning the jury's discretion and deliberative process

Text: Defendant contends that CALJIC No. 8.88 (1989 rev.), which instructed the jury concerning the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors, violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. As defendant acknowledges, we previously have considered and rejected these contentions. [43] (13) First, defendant claims the instruction did not convey the requirement that the jury impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole if the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances. (See § 190.3.) CALJIC No. 8.88 explains, however, that [t]o return a judgment of death, each of you must be persuaded that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that it warrants death instead of life without parole. This statement adequately explains the circumstances in which the jury may return a verdict of death. ( Page, supra, 44 Cal.4th 1, 57; People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 42-44 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 894, 117 P.3d 591] ( Moon ).) In particular, it highlights the significant burden that must be satisfied before a verdict of death may be returned, and thereby conveys that life in prison without the possibility of parole is the appropriate punishment if this burden is not met. ( Page, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 57.) Next, defendant claims CALJIC No. 8.88 improperly suggested that a quantitative comparison of the `totality' of mitigating factors was required, and failed to convey the principle that one mitigating factor may outweigh all aggravating factors. The instruction explained that [t]he weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances does not mean a mere mechanical counting of factors on each side of an imaginary scale, or the arbitrary assignment of weights to any of them. You are free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various factors you are permitted to consider. Thus, CALJIC No. 8.88 properly describes the weighing process as `merely a metaphor for the juror's personal determination that death is the appropriate penalty under all of the circumstances.' [Citation.] ( People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1161 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 373, 52 P.3d 572].) As we have repeatedly explained, the standard jury instructions ... `are adequate to inform the jurors of their sentencing responsibilities in compliance with federal and state constitutional standards.' [Citations.] ( Kelly II, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 799 [trial court need not instruct that a single mitigating factor could outweigh a number of aggravating factors].) Finally, defendant contends the instruction's description of mitigation improperly focused upon the crime in question, misled the jury to believe it could consider only the circumstances of the crimes, and failed to inform the jury of the full range of evidence it could consider in mitigation. In support of his contention, defendant cites empirical research concerning jurors' understanding of penalty phase jury instructions. As we previously have held, [t]he definition of mitigation included in CALJIC No. 8.88 ... [does] not fail to explain that concept adequately. [Citation.] We are not persuaded otherwise by defendant's citation to certain empirical research, not part of the record and not subject to cross-examination, suggesting that substantial numbers of persons, given the standard instruction, misunderstand mitigation as limited to the circumstances of the capital crime. ( People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 486 [42 Cal.Rptr.3d 677, 133 P.3d 581], fn. omitted ( Boyer ); [44] see People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 772-772 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203, 976 P.2d 754]; see also People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1066 [71 Cal.Rptr.3d 675, 175 P.3d 632] [trial court did not err by omitting definitions of aggravating and mitigating, because such a definitional instruction is not required for these commonly understood terms].)