Opinion ID: 2508525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial Court's Refusal to Modify Death Sentence

Text: The trial court refused defendant's motion to modify the jury verdict of death pursuant to section 190.4, subdivision (e). Defendant contends the trial court erred. We disagree. Defendant focuses on a statement made by the trial court in the course of explaining its refusal to modify the motion. The court stated: The function of the court in this motion is to review the evidence, consider and to take into account and be guided by the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and then make a determination as to whether the jury's finding and verdicts were or were not contrary to law.  Defendant contends that the italicized portion of this statement represents a misunderstanding on the trial court's part of its proper function, and that this misunderstanding undermines the validity of its ruling on the motion to modify the verdict. As we have stated: `In ruling on a verdict-modification application, the trial judge is required by section 190.4 [subdivision] (e) to make an independent determination whether imposition of the death penalty upon the defendant is proper in light of the relevant evidence and the applicable law. [Citations.] That is to say, he must determine whether the jury's decision that death is appropriate under all the circumstances is adequately supported. [Citation.] And he must make that determination independently, i.e., in accordance with the weight he himself believes the evidence deserves. [Citation.]' ( People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907, 942, 269 Cal.Rptr. 269, 790 P.2d 676.) Although the italicized portion of the trial court's statement quoted above may leave some doubt about whether the trial court understood that it was to independently review the jury verdict under section 190.4, subdivision (e), its very next statement removes that doubt. The court stated: Naturally, the court did reweigh the evidence in making those determinations. A review of the remainder of the court's statement of reasons for denying defendant's motion, in which it explained its independent assessment of each aggravating and mitigating factor and the relative weight given to each, makes clear the trial court understood its proper role and acted accordingly. Defendant also contends trial court error can be found in the court's statement that a strong argument could be made that the death sentence would not have been justified if Raper had been the sole victim, in light of defendant's lack of a criminal record and violent past, as well as his subservient status in Cruz's cult. Defendant argues that the murder of Raper alone would not have made defendant death eligible, and that the trial court's statement that it might modify the death sentence only under a circumstance that would have made defendant ineligible for the death penalty shows that the court effectively abrogated its function under section 190.4, subdivision (e). Defendant distorts the meaning of the trial court's statements. The trial court used the example of the sole murder of Raper as a means of explaining the weight it gave the mitigating evidence. While the court concluded the mitigating evidence was not inconsiderable, and could have led to a reversal of the death sentence had a less aggravated crime been committed, the mitigating evidence did not in the trial court's judgment outweigh the four planned, gruesome murders in which defendant participated as perpetrator and accomplice. The trial court did not suggest, as defendant implies, that it would automatically affirm the verdict because defendant was guilty of multiple murder. Taken in its proper context, we find no error in the trial court's statements.