Opinion ID: 2585503
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Refusal to Permit Evidence of the Sentences of Other Perpetrators

Text: Defendant requested that the trial court take judicial notice of the sentences meted out to Mark Bender and Broderick Fields, claiming this information was mitigating evidence. The trial court denied the motion, and defendant now contends this was error. He admits we have rejected this legal claim several times in the past (see, e.g., People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1068, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388), but urges us to reconsider, relying on Parker v. Dugger (1991) 498 U.S. 308, 111 S.Ct. 731, 112 L.Ed.2d 812. We have consistently held that evidence of an accomplice's sentence is irrelevant at the penalty phase because `it does not shed any light on the circumstances of the offense or the defendant's character, background, history or mental condition.' ( People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 1004-1005, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 654, 51 P.3d 874, quoting People v. Cain, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 63, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 481, 892 P.2d 1224.) Defendant presents no persuasive reason to reconsider that conclusion. Parker v. Dugger, supra, 498 U.S. 308, 111 S.Ct. 731, 112 L.Ed.2d 812, on which he relies, does not direct a different result. Parker did not hold evidence of an accomplice's sentence must be introduced in mitigation at the penalty phase, or that a comparison between sentences given codefendants is required. [Citation.] The Parker court merely concluded a Florida trial judge, in sentencing the defendant to death, had in fact considered the nonstatutory mitigating evidence of the accomplice's sentence, as under Florida law he was entitled to do. [Citation.] Parker does not state or imply the Florida rule is constitutionally required, and California law is to the contrary; we have held such evidence irrelevant because it does not shed any light on the circumstances of the offense or the defendant's character, background, history or mental condition. ( Cain, supra, at p. 63, 40 Cal.Rptr .2d 481, 892 P.2d 1224.) We conclude the trial court did not err in refusing to grant the request for judicial notice. Defendant next raises several claims concerning the jury instructions at the penalty phase.