Opinion ID: 2636899
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Instruction as to section 190.3, factor (b).

Text: Appellant contends that the jury was likely to misunderstand the instruction, former CALJIC No. 8.84.1, that it consider, if applicable, the absence of criminal activity other than those acts for which he has been convicted in this trial, which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence. As worded, appellant argues, the jury would believe that only complete absence of other criminal activity was mitigating, an understanding reinforced by defense counsel who referred to that factor as absence of criminal activity and by the prosecutor's argument in which he identified appellant's nonviolent criminal activity as aggravating factors. The prosecutor did not do so. He argued only that the defense penalty phase witnesses who testified about appellant's sterling character as a youth did not know about his conduct as an adult. We find no reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the manner now suggested by appellant. ( Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 380, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316; People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 801, 276 Cal.Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330.)