Opinion ID: 1316209
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on Sympathy for Defendant's Family

Text: In defining the aggravating and mitigating factors to be weighed by the jury in selecting the appropriate penalty, the trial court gave the following instruction: Although you may consider sympathy for the defendant in determining punishment, you may not consider sympathy for the defendant's family, or friends, and you may not consider sympathy for the victim or his family. In considering sympathy you shall be limited to sympathy for the defendant only and no other person. (Italics added.) Defendant contends the italicized language violated the federal Constitution and state law because it prohibited the sentencer from considering, as a mitigating factor, `any aspect of [his] character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense [offered] as a basis for a sentence less than death.' ( Skipper v. South Carolina (1986) 476 U.S. 1, 4, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1, citing Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982) 455 U.S. 104, 110, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 and Lockett v. Ohio (1978) 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (plur. opn. of Burger, C.J.); see § 190.3, factor (k); People v. Easley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 858, 877-878 & fn. 10, 196 Cal.Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813.) Defendant also insists that if the impact of the murder on the victim's family is relevant to the jury's decision as to whether or not the death penalty should be imposed ( Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720, italics added; see People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 832-836, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436), the jury should not be barred from considering the effect of a death verdict on the defendant's family. [21] We have rejected similar claims before, and do so again here. (E.g., People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th 936, 999-1000, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171 [prosecutor did not commit misconduct in urging jury to ignore sympathy for defendant's family as a mitigating factor]; People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th 353, 454-456, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442 [trial court did not err in refusing to instruct jury to consider sympathy for defendant's family as a mitigating factor]; People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 544-546, 46 Cal. Rptr.2d 751, 905 P.2d 420 [trial court did not err in excluding testimony about the grief and stigma a death sentence would inflict upon defendant's family].) The foregoing cases make clear that while so-called victim impact considerations show the specific harm caused by the defendant and his moral culpability for purposes of determining whether he deserves to die, the impact of a death sentence on the defendant's family and friends has no similar bearing on the individualized nature of the penalty decision. Sympathy for defendant's loved ones, as such, and their reaction to a death verdict, as such, do not relate to either the circumstances of the capital crime or the character and background of the accused. Because the challenged instruction was consistent with the foregoing principles, the trial court did not err in giving it at defendant's trial.