Opinion ID: 1130099
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Absence of Mitigation.

Text: (17) Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte that the jury could impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole even if it found no circumstances in mitigation. (See People v. Duncan, supra, 53 Cal.3d 955, 979 [The jury may decide, even in the absence of mitigating evidence, that the aggravating evidence is not comparatively substantial enough to warrant death.].) Defendant insists that the lack of such an instruction violated his right to due process and to a reliable penalty determination under the federal Constitution, and denied him equal protection of the law under the federal and state Constitutions. We reject the claim. As People v. Duncan, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pages 978-979, and other cases make clear, the standard instructions given in this case adequately guide selection of the appropriate punishment, including the jury's discretion to reject a death sentence under the circumstances highlighted by defendant. Specifically, CALJIC No. 8.88 informed jurors that in order [t]o return a judgment of death, each of you must be persuaded that the aggravating [evidence is] so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that it warrants death instead of life without parole. By stating that death can be imposed in only one circumstance  where aggravation substantially outweighs mitigation  the instruction clearly implies that a sentence less than death may be imposed in all other circumstances. No reasonable juror would assume he or she was required to impose death despite insubstantial aggravating circumstances, merely because no mitigating circumstances were found to exist. ( People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 52 [23 Cal. Rptr.2d 593, 859 P.2d 673]; accord, People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1192 [36 Cal. Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1].) We conclude here, as before, that an instruction explicitly authorizing a sentence of life imprisonment in the absence of mitigating evidence was not required or necessary. The trial court therefore did not err in failing to give such an instruction.