Opinion ID: 2572600
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: refused mitigation instructions

Text: At the penalty phase, defendant offered four special instructions relating to mitigating circumstances that the trial court refused, concluding that they were less even handed than the standard instructions. He argues that these instructions would have accurately informed the jury that the determination of penalty was a qualitative decision and not merely a quantitative balancing of mitigating against aggravating circumstances. Defendant's proposed special instruction number 19 provided: Since you, as jurors, decide what weight is to be given the evidence in aggravation and the evidence in mitigation, you are instructed that any mitigating evidence standing alone may be the basis for deciding that life without possibility of parole is the appropriate punishment. The instruction is argumentative because it states that any mitigating evidence may support a sentence of life without possibility of parole, but it does not state that any aggravating evidence may support a death sentence. ( People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1069, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388.) The jury was given CALJIC No. 8.88 (1989 rev.) (5th ed.1988), which defined a mitigating circumstance as any fact, condition or event which as such, does not constitute a justification or excuse for the crime ..., but may be considered as an extenuating circumstance in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty, and which states that the absence of factors in mitigation does not require a verdict of death. This latter clause, implicitly, and other language in the instruction, explicitly, reject the counting method to which defendant objects. Thus, the jury was told that the weighing process was not a mere mechanical counting of factors on each side of an imaginary scale and told it was free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value it deemed appropriate to each and all of the factors it was permitted to consider. ( People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 638, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 68 P.3d 302 [counting of factors claim rejected in light of language in CALJIC No. 8.88].) The trial court did not err by refusing special instruction number 19 because as written that instruction was argumentative. Moreover, because the jury was instructed with CALJIC 8.88 that it was not merely to balance the number of aggravating circumstances against the number of mitigating circumstances, and advised that it was to choose what weight to assign to any factor, it received an evenhanded framed instruction that addressed defendant's concern. Special instruction number 20 stated: You may spare the defendant's life for any reason you deem appropriate and satisfactory. The trial court did not err by rejecting this instruction, with its sweeping language, in favor of the standard instruction, whose terminology reflects the statutory language. Defendant's proposed special instruction number 20A stated: You need not find any mitigating circumstances in order to return a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. A life sentence may be returned regardless of the evidence. The second sentence of the instruction is wrong to the extent that it invites the jury to act without regard to the evidence, and duplicative to the extent that the jury was instructed that it was free to assign whatever moral and sympathetic value to the factors it was permitted to consider. Although the trial court refused to give special instruction number 20A, it did instruct the jury that [t]he defendant has no burden to introduce any factors in mitigation and the absence of factors in mitigation does not require a verdict of death. The first sentence of defendant's requested instruction would have been duplicative of the instruction given. Lastly, proposed special instruction number 32 stated: Let me emphasize.... You may return a verdict of life imprisonment without possibility of parole even if you find that the factors and circumstances in aggravation outweigh those in mitigation. We have previously rejected the contention that such an instruction must be given. ( People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 191, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150; People v. Kipp, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 381, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 716, 956 P.2d 1169.) To summarize, the trial court did not err in refusing to give defendant's proposed special mitigation instructions.