Opinion ID: 2590700
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Capital Sentencing Instructions Fail to Guide the Jury's Discretion

Text: Defendant asserts that the penalty instructions, namely CALJIC No. 8.85, failed to sufficiently guide the jury's discretion, failed to define the mitigating factors, and were confusing. We disagree. Contrary to defendant's assertions, the instruction need not omit inapplicable sentencing factors ( People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 899, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15); it need not advise which factors are relevant as mitigating circumstances and which factors are relevant as aggravating circumstances ( People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 191-192, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988); the aggravating factors are not vague and ill-defined ( People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 899, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15); the use of the words extreme and substantial to describe potential mitigating evidence is not impermissible ( People v. Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1029, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183); and the jury need not determine the existence of the aggravating circumstances or the appropriateness of the death penalty beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 899, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15.) In short, CALJIC No. 8.85 is not unconstitutionally vague and does not allow the penalty process to proceed arbitrarily.... [Citations.] ( People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 192, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988.) Defendant provides no basis for us to reconsider our decisions.