Opinion ID: 1281413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Special Instructions Defining Aggravating and Mitigating

Text: Shortly after commencing their deliberations, the jury requested the court to define aggravating and mitigating. In discussing the matter with the court, both the prosecutor and defense counsel stated they knew of no pertinent cases specifically defining those terms. The court, with both counsel and defendant personally in agreement, ultimately responded by giving the jury the definitions of aggravation and mitigation found in Corpus Juris Secundum, as follows: Aggravation. Any circumstance attending the commission of a crime ... which increases its guilt or enormity or adds to its injurious consequences, ... but which is above and beyond the essential constituents of the crime or tort itself (3 C.J.S., at p. 507);  Mitigating circumstances. Such circumstances as do not amount to a justification or excuse of the offense or act in question but may properly be considered in mitigation, or reduction, of the punishment.... (14 C.J.S., at p. 1123.) (56) We recently found no prejudice from the reading of nearly identical definitions in People v. Dyer, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pages 77-78. Indeed, we concluded that such definitions provided a helpful framework within which the jury could consider the specific circumstances in aggravation and mitigation set forth in section 190.3. ( Ibid. ) As in Dyer, here the jury was also instructed that, you shall consider, take into account, and be guided by the applicable factors of aggravating and mitigating circumstances upon which you have been instructed. (Former CALJIC No. 8.84.2.) Accordingly, we find no error or prejudice in the presentation of both definitions to the jury. We therefore reject defendant's further claim that defense counsel was somehow ineffective in failing to further research the matter.