Opinion ID: 2608844
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Changes in the Death Penalty Law

Text: Defendant was properly tried under the 1977 death penalty statute. He contends, however, that he was entitled to an instruction pursuant to an ameliorative change in the language of the 1978 death penalty statute, specifically section 190.3, which provides that the jury, after considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, shall impose a sentence of death if the trier of fact concludes that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. If the trier of fact determines that the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances, the trier of fact shall impose a sentence of confinement in state prison for a term of life without possibility of parole.  (Italics added.) Former section 190.3 contained no such language. [15] Defendant's contention is without merit. (20) In the first place, we have observed that the 1978 initiative was intended to be purely prospective in effect.... ( People v. Easley, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 883.) The presumption that a criminal defendant is entitled to an ameliorative change in the law is just that  a presumption  which plainly does not apply where, as here, the new law provides otherwise. ( In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744 [48 Cal. Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948].) In addition, we have expressly held that on balance, the 1978 version [of section 190.3] is much less favorable to a defendant than the 1977 provision. ( People v. Easley, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 884, italics added.) Moreover, we have held that an instruction which tells the jury that it shall return a death verdict if aggravation outweighs mitigation is ambiguous and susceptible to misinterpretation. ( People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 538-545 [220 Cal. Rptr. 637, 709 P.2d 440], revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [93 L.Ed.2d 934, 107 S.Ct. 837].) The same reasoning would apply to an instruction that the jury shall return a life verdict if mitigation outweighs aggravation. (21) As the current instruction directs, the jury's decision  whether for life without possibility of parole or death  must not be based upon a mere arithmetic addition of the weights given the factors on each side of the scale, but rather on an individual assessment of the moral or sympathetic value of the evidence to determine the appropriate penalty. (See CALJIC No. 8.88 (1989 rev.) (5th ed. pocket pt.).) Accordingly, we conclude there is no merit to defendant's contention he was entitled to an instruction pursuant to the 1978 version of section 190.3.