Opinion ID: 844212
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Court's consideration of additional victim impact evidence

Text: Before ruling on defendant's automatic application for modification of the verdict of death (Pen. Code, § 190.4, subd. (e)), the court permitted Miller's fiancée, Holly Daniels, and his mother, America Miller, to make brief statements. Daniels told the court how Miller's death had affected her and their daughter. America Miller said her faith allowed her to forgive defendant, and admonished defendant to accept God. Defendant contends the judgment of death must be vacated because the court improperly heard victim impact statements that had not been considered by the jury in fixing the penalty at death. (20) In ruling on a defendant's application for modification of a verdict under Penal Code section 190.4, subdivision (e), the trial court `must independently reweigh the evidence of aggravating and mitigating factors presented at trial and determine whether, in its independent judgment, the evidence supports the death verdict.' ( People v. Carrington, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 201.) A trial court ruling on the application therefore should not consider evidence, including statements from the victim's relatives, that was not presented to the jury during the penalty phase of the trial. ( People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1184 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892, 938 P.2d 950].) Here, although the court allowed Miller's fiancée and mother to speak, it did so only after expressing agreement with the jury's finding that the circumstances in aggravation were so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that the penalty of death was warranted. The statements therefore did not factor into the court's decision to deny the motion. Further, defendant did not object, thereby forfeiting his claim. (See People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 907 [48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 141 P.3d 135].)