Opinion ID: 1249738
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury Instruction on Extenuating Circumstances.

Text: The court gave the jury a modified version of CALJIC No. 8.84.1: In determining which penalty is to be imposed on each defendant, you shall consider all of the evidence which has been received during any part of the trial of this case. You shall consider, take into account, and be guided by the following factors, if applicable: ... [¶] (k) Any other circumstance, including the defendant's background, which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime. (55) Defendant contends the court precluded the jury from giving proper weight to aspects of his character and background that mitigated his offenses. The United States Supreme Court has decided that the proper inquiry when a defendant contends an instruction is ambiguous to his or her detriment is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence. ( Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 380 [108 L.Ed.2d 316, 329, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 1198] [considering challenge to CALJIC No. 8.84.1].) It is inconceivable that under this instruction the jury could have cast aside the great amount of evidence defendant offered in mitigation. In Boyde the federal high court rejected a contention that an unadorned version of CALJIC No. 8.84.1, which, unlike the instruction here, did not refer to a defendant's background, deprived the jury of the ability to give effect to evidence ... of ... [an] impoverished and deprived childhood, ... inadequacies as a school student, and ... strength of character in the face of these obstacles. (494 U.S. at p. 381 [108 L.Ed.2d at p. 330, 110 S.Ct. at p. 1198].) The instruction here gave the jury ample leeway to consider similar episodes in defendant's life. We find no error.