Opinion ID: 1453508
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on Evaluation of Mitigating Factors

Text: (39) The court gave a catch-all mitigation instruction substantially identical to that recommended in People v. Easley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 858, 878, footnote 10 [196 Cal. Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813]. Defendant contends the court erred in refusing to give an additional instruction. [13] The Easley instruction, however, is sufficient to advise the jury of the full range of mitigating evidence, and nothing more is required. ( People v. Sully, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pp. 1244-1245; see also People v. Malone (1988) 47 Cal.3d 1, 54-55 & fn. 30 [252 Cal. Rptr. 525, 762 P.2d 1249] [trial court properly refused the same instruction].) Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has upheld an arguably narrower instruction. ( Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 377-383 [108 L.Ed.2d 316, 327-331, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 1196-1199].) (40) Defendant also contends the court erred in refusing his request to instruct the jury, If you determine that the aggravating factors substantially outweigh the mitigating factors, you may return a finding of death or a finding of life in prison without the possibility of parole. (Italics added.) In Boyde v. California, supra, 494 U.S. at pages 376-377 [108 L.Ed.2d at p. 326, 110 S.Ct. at pp. 1195-1196], the high court upheld an almost diametrically opposite instruction  that the jury shall impose the death penalty if it concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. We expressed misgivings about the word shall in People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pages 544-545, and footnote 17, and recommended that future courts instruct as was done in this case. We have never suggested the instruction now urged was required. The Brown instruction was sufficient.