Opinion ID: 2599854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Pity as a Mitigating Circumstance

Text: The jury was instructed at the guilt phase in accordance with CALJIC No. 1.00 that: You must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. For the penalty phase, the jury was instructed to [disregard all other instructions given to you in other phases of this trial, except for those [given the jury for the penalty phase]. Although it was not instructed specifically that it could consider pity for defendant as a mitigating factor, it was instructed in accordance with section 190.3, factor (k): [The jury should consider] any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime and any sympathetic or other aspect of the defendant's character or record that the defendant offers as a basis for a sentence less than death, whether or not related to the offense for which he is on trial. You must disregard any jury instruction given to you in the guilt or innocence phase of this trial which conflicts with this principle. (CALJIC No. 8.85, factor (k).) Despite these instructions, defendant contends the trial court violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing to instruct the jury specifically that it could consider pity for him as a mitigating factor. Because the trial court instructed the jury with an expanded section 190.3, factor (k) instruction, it did not err in failing to instruct more specifically on pity as a mitigating factor. ( People v. Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 638, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 68 P.3d 302 and cases cited.)