Opinion ID: 1172016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Consideration of Sympathy at the Penalty Phase

Text: (20) Defendant contends that the trial court extracted ... promises from the jurors that they would not consider `sympathy' in arriving at their verdict. He bases this claim upon the court's voir dire questioning of prospective jurors. In determining whether a prospective juror would be able to vote for the death penalty, the court asked whether an objective determination of that sentence could be made, setting aside feelings of sympathy, prejudice or bias. Defendant suggests that those jurors who were asked this question remembered it two months later and included it along with the other penalty phase instructions. We find defendant's claim lacks merit. At the outset, we observe that the court's voir dire questions were previously approved by the prosecutor and defense counsel. Second, there is no indication in the record that the court was asking the jurors to impose the death penalty without considering sympathy for defendant, the court's questions seem more directed toward assuring that the jurors would not vote to impose the death penalty based on unwarranted sympathy for defendant's victims, or prejudice toward defendant. Finally, these questions were asked on voir dire, when the jury's attention was not yet focused on the penalty issues. Any error was thus undoubtedly harmless. (Cf. People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 769-770 [239 Cal. Rptr. 82, 739 P.2d 1250].) Our conclusion is fortified by the fact that the penalty phase closing arguments made it clear that mitigating sympathy factors, such as defendant's background or character, were relevant to the jury's decision. Defense counsel, who argued first, explained that this decision required balancing the equities, including defendant's background, his age, his character ..., all factors. The prosecutor disagreed that there were mitigating aspects of defendant's character, but he never argued that the sympathy considerations cited by defense counsel were legally irrelevant. As he explained, The point now is [for the jury to decide] what could possibly, possibly come into this case to soften what we now know Mr. Silva did. What is there to weigh against the propriety, against the rightness of the maximum punishment? Thus, the jury was not misled regarding the propriety of considering defendant's background, character and other sympathy evidence. (See People v. Easley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 858, 878, and fn. 10 [196 Cal. Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813].)