Opinion ID: 2633370
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to present available mitigating evidence

Text: Defendant contends counsel, Mrs. Huffman, was constitutionally ineffective for calling only one witness at the penalty phase: defendant himself, who briefly discussed his 1976 assault on Bonnie Brown, explaining he voluntarily turned himself in to police and thereafter unsuccessfully sought treatment at two Veterans Administration mental hospitals in Texas. He claims counsel should have presented evidence from family, friends, and acquaintances from the military and prison to humanize defendant and to show the jury his good side. We have declined to find reversible error when a capital defendant fails to present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase. ( People v. Diaz (1992) 3 Cal.4th 495, 566, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 353, 834 P.2d 1171 [finding [o]n a silent record, . . . we will not assume that the defense counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence rendered his assistance ineffective].) Although defendant contends People v. Deere (1985) 41 Cal.3d 353, 222 Cal.Rptr. 13, 710 P.2d 925 supports his argument, and that later cases limiting Deere are distinguishable, we rejected that exact claim in Diaz as well. ( Diaz, supra, at p. 566, 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 353, 834 P.2d 1171.) This is not strictly a case in which defendant presented absolutely no mitigating evidence. As noted, he took the stand and explained some of the circumstances surrounding his assault on Brown. More significantly, he presented a substantial amount of mitigating evidence in the sanity phase, calling numerous expert witnesses who testified defendant suffered, to varying degrees, from schizophrenia, PTSD, and other mental conditions. The jury was aware of that evidence and could have considered it under section 190.3, factors (d) (Whether or not the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance), (h) (Whether or not at the time of the offense the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of [law] law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect, or the [e]ffects of intoxication), and (k) (Any other circumstance that extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime). We note Mrs. Huffman relied on this evidence and urged the jury, in closing argument, to consider these factors when deciding on the appropriate penalty. In light of the amount of mitigating evidence available to the jury, it is not reasonably probable additional mitigating evidence would have altered the outcome at the penalty phase of the trial. We thus reject defendant's claim counsel was ineffective for failing to present more mitigating evidence.