Opinion ID: 2636899
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction as to factors (d) and (h) of section 190.3.

Text: Factor (d) of section 190.3 permits the jury to consider whether the defendant committed the capital offense while under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Factor (h) of section 190.3 permits the jury to consider whether the defendant's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect. The jury was so instructed. Appellant contends that evidence of these factors may only be considered mitigating. In People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th at page 709, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640, we reaffirmed our view that a court need not instruct that section 190.3, factor (d) may only be considered in mitigation. We have held, however, that the absence of these, or any, factors may not be considered aggravating. ( People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 288-290, 221 Cal.Rptr. 794, 710 P.2d 861.) Because the jury was not so instructed, appellant argues, jurors who did not believe in an insanity defense or thought a mental illness defense was a cop-out would have considered his reliance on that defense as a factor in aggravation. He did not request a clarifying instruction, however. The jury was properly instructed to rely on evidence. Appellant's reliance on an insanity or mental illness defense was not itself evidence. We see no possibility that the jury would misunderstand the instruction in the manner suggested by appellant. Nor would a reasonable juror fail to identify evidence of mental illness as mitigating. ( People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d 754, 802, 276 Cal.Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330.) Thus, the failure of defense counsel to request further instructions cannot be deemed incompetent or prejudicial. In sum, the record does not support appellant's assertion that the jury relied on an invalid aggravating factor.