Opinion ID: 2625727
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Clarifying Instruction on Aggravation

Text: CALJIC No. 8.88 includes the following sentence: An aggravating factor is any fact, condition or event attending the commission of a crime which increases its severity or enormity, or adds to its injurious consequences, which is above and beyond the elements of the crime itself. During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court asking: (1) Can you clarify `attending the commission of a crime which . . .' (2) How's `attending' meant? (3) And a little clarification as a whole on the definition of aggravating factor or evidence. The court met with counsel, and decided to give the jury four alternative phrases for attending, but no additional definition of aggravating factor. Both counsel agreed with this approach. The jury was brought in and the court told them that in place of attending, they could substitute connected with, and surrounding circumstances of, accompanying, or associated with. The court added, if you need any further readback or any further clarification, we'll attempt to do that as soon as possible. Just write it out on another note, and we'll be happy to provide that for you. Defendant contends the court's failure to provide further clarification deprived him of his Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair trial, an impartial jury, due process, and a reliable penalty determination. He notes that before sending this query, the jury had requested a readback of testimony about defendant's drug habit, and then sent a notice of deadlock. Subsequently, it requested readback of the deputies' testimony regarding the Flemming murder, and sent another notice of deadlock. From these circumstances, defendant infers that the jury was confused about aggravating factors and the court failed to dispel the confusion. Defendant waived this claim by agreeing to the court's response below. In no sense were his substantial rights affected so as to obviate the necessity of an objection pursuant to section 1259. Although it was invited to seek further clarification by the court, the jury did not ask any more questions about aggravating factors. Evidently, the court's provision of alternatives for attending resolved the jury's uncertainties. In any event, it is settled that further explanation of the standard instructions on this point is not required. ( People v. Kirkpatrick (1994) 7 Cal.4th 988, 1018 [30 Cal.Rptr.2d 818, 874 P.2d 248], citing cases.)