Opinion ID: 1147525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Moral Justification Instruction

Text: In accordance with the language of section 190.3, factor (f), the jury was instructed to take into account in determining penalty whether or not the offense was committed under circumstances which the defendant reasonably believed to be a moral justification or extenuation for his conduct. Defendant contends it was error to instruct in this language because it could be interpreted as precluding the jury from considering as mitigating a defendant's sincere but unreasonable belief in the moral justification of his conduct. (27) As noted, the jury was given an expanded factor (k) instruction stating that the circumstances properly considered in determining penalty included any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime. This instruction permits the penalty jury to consider in mitigation a defendant's sincere but unreasonable belief in justification. (See People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1247 [259 Cal. Rptr. 669, 774 P.2d 698]; People v. Lucky (1988) 45 Cal.3d 259, 297 [247 Cal. Rptr. 1, 753 P.2d 1052] [nonextreme mental disturbance included under factor (k)]; People v. Guzman, supra, 45 Cal.3d 915, 965 [same].) There is no indication the jury was misled regarding its duty to consider relevant mitigating evidence.