Opinion ID: 2634388
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Instructions on Weighing Aggravating and Mitigating Evidence

Text: The trial court gave the jury a modified version of CALJIC No. 8.88, the penalty phase instruction that addresses the weighing of aggravating and mitigating evidence. Defendant makes a number of constitutional challenges to the instruction, all of which we have previously rejected. Defendant offers several arguments regarding the instruction's last sentence, which states: To 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. Contrary to defendant's arguments, the phrase so substantial is not impermissibly vague, and the sentence is not incorrect in stating that the key question is whether the death penalty is warranted, rather than appropriate. ( People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 124, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30.) As for defendant's remaining arguments, the instruction as a whole was not erroneous in failing to state that (1) the jury must return a life verdict if it finds that the factors in aggravation do not outweigh those in mitigation, (2) neither party bore the burden to persuade the jury of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the death penalty, and (3) the jury could return a life sentence even if the circumstances in aggravation outweighed those in mitigation. ( Ibid. ) Defendant offers no persuasive reason for reconsidering any of these issues.