Opinion ID: 2633881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Argument Regarding the Role of Evidence in Mitigation

Text: Defendant takes issue with the prosecutor's argument at various points that mitigation involved lessening defendant's responsibility and culpability. Defendant argues this was misconduct because it misstated the law, in that the jury is to consider [a]ny other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime. (§ 190.3, factor (k).) Again, the lack of an objection and request for an admonition forfeited this claim. Moreover, we discern no misconduct. The prosecutor's isolated remarks regarding responsibility and culpability, even if erroneous, were not so significant as to overshadow the prosecutor's other correct statements of the definition of mitigation. The prosecutor in no way argued that the jury could not consider defendant's evidence in mitigation, and in fact he discussed essentially the entire defense case and often pointed out that it was for the jury to determine whether and to what degree particular evidence amounted to a mitigating factor. Any possible misconduct would be of minimal significance, and was rendered even less potentially harmful by defendant's penalty phase argument, which stressed the jury's ability to consider mercy and sympathy, and the trial court's proper instructions on the scope of the mitigating factors.