Opinion ID: 1399120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Automatic Application to Modify Verdict

Text: (49) Defendant urges his sentence be reversed because the trial court read and considered materials outside the record before denying his automatic application to modify the verdict. (§ 190.4, subd. (e).) The record shows that the hearing on the application was held on May 16, 1988. The probation report had previously been filed. Although the trial court did not expressly state it had read the probation report before ruling on the application to modify the verdict, the record supports the inference that it had done so. The trial court had certainly read the letters attached to the report (most of which were written in support of defendant, although two had been submitted by a relative and friends of David Church). The trial court must decide the application for modification of the verdict on the basis of the evidence  which, of course, does not include the probation report. (§ 190.4, subd. (e); People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1329 [248 Cal. Rptr. 834, 756 P.2d 221].) Consideration of the probation report or victim-impact statements before ruling on the application for modification is, therefore, error. ( People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 287 [266 Cal. Rptr. 834, 786 P.2d 892].) But even when the trial court has considered such extraneous information in ruling on the application, we assume there has been no improper influence on the court, absent specific evidence to the contrary. ( People v. Bacigalupo (1991) 1 Cal.4th 103, 150 [2 Cal. Rptr.2d 335, 820 P.2d 559]; People v. Adcox, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 274.) The record in this case demonstrates that the trial court's review of the extraneous information resulted in no prejudice to defendant. The court indicated through its remarks that it was well aware section 190.4, subdivision (e), required that the determination be based on the evidence and guided by the aggravating and mitigating circumstances referred to in section 190.3. From the court's statement of reasons for denying modification, we find it clear that the court gave greatest weight to the evidence of the Urell murder and the Church and Dowdy killings. Acknowledging the feelings expressed in the probation report and the letters from Church's relative and friends, the court said, I'm persuaded by the evidence that I heard more than I am by letters from family members, comments from family members on the one side and letters in support of Mr. Fauber on the other. Defendant complains that this statement indicates the trial court was in fact influenced by the probation report and letters. Although the remark indicates some small quantum of improper influence, we find no reasonable possibility that the trial court's error affected its decision. ( People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 812.) (50) Defendant complains that, even after the United States Supreme Court's decision in Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. ___ [115 L.Ed.2d 720, 111 S.Ct. 2597], which overruled the bar to presentation of certain forms of victim-impact evidence at the penalty phase recognized in Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496 [96 L.Ed.2d 440, 107 S.Ct. 2529] and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805 [104 L.Ed.2d 876, 109 S.Ct. 2207], use of the opinions of victims' families regarding punishment in a verdict modification proceeding violates the Eighth Amendment. We disagree. Even if we were able to say, on this record, that the trial court used the opinions of the victims' families, the broad holding of Booth and Gathers does not extend to proceedings relating to the application for modification of a verdict of death under section 190.4(e). ( People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 812.)