Opinion ID: 1386274
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Refusal to Give a Requested Instruction on Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

Text: Defendant requested the trial court to give Defendant's Proposed Instruction No. 10: If a factor is not found to be by you a mitigating factor, that in and of itself does not make that factor an aggravating factor. The court refused, stating that the proposed instruction was covered in other instructions. (55) Defendant contends that the trial court's refusal was error under California law. He argues that the court should have told the jurors that the absence of a circumstance in mitigation did not constitute the presence of a circumstance in aggravation. But through the charge as a whole, the court adequately  albeit only impliedly  made that very point. Surely, the words actually used by the court were far clearer than those proposed by defendant. A court may refuse an instruction that is confusing ( People v. Gordon, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 1275) or duplicative ( People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 805, fn. 12). The requested instruction was both. There was no error. [26]