Opinion ID: 1170931
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Lack of Remorse as an Aggravating Factor.

Text: (39) Defendant and amicus curiae contend that the prosecutor impermissibly argued lack of remorse as an aggravating factor. The prosecutor argued that the circumstances of the offenses, defendant's testimony, and his courtroom demeanor together evidenced his total lack of remorse for his crimes. Defendant's failure to object or request a curative admonition has waived any claim of misconduct on appeal with regard to the argument. ( People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 27; People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 788.) Although it is clear that the People may not present evidence in aggravation unless it is relevant to a statutory aggravating circumstance ( People v. Boyd, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 771-776), we have held that, under a prior death penalty law, the presence or absence of remorse is a factor relevant to the jury's penalty decision. ( People v. Coleman [(1969)] 71 Cal.2d [1159,] at p. 1168 [80 Cal. Rptr. 920, 459 P.2d 248].) The concept of remorse for past offenses as a mitigating factor sometimes warranting less severe punishment or condemnation is universal. ( People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 771.) Here, the prosecutor's comments on defendant's lack of remorse did no more than suggest the inapplicability of a mitigating factor. ( People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 790; People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 771.) Even were we to read the prosecutor's argument as affirmatively advancing defendant's lack of remorse as an aggravating circumstance, our review of the record convinces us that such remarks could not have affected the penalty verdict. ( Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 775-776.)