Opinion ID: 1379313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: brown contention

Text: (28) Defendant contends he was prejudiced by the court's instructing that the jury shall impose a sentence of death if it concludes that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances (§ 190.3) because of the alleged absence of safeguards prescribed in People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 538-545 [220 Cal. Rptr. 637, 709 P.2d 440]. In addition, however, the court gave special instructions substantially similar to those in People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 761 [244 Cal. Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741]. Nothing in the penalty phase arguments could have misled the jury to defendant's prejudice. The prosecutor correctly explained that the jury had to determine the relative weight of the aggravating and mitigating factors, not merely count the number of factors on each side. The fact that the jury returned a death verdict for only the murder of Patty, and not the murder of Stacy, indicates an individualized, rather than a mechanical, approach to its task. Reviewing the record as a whole, we conclude the jury was not misled regarding its duties. ( People v. Boyde (1988) 46 Cal.3d 212, 252-255 [250 Cal. Rptr. 83, 758 P.2d 25], affd. sub nom. Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370 [108 L.Ed.2d 316, 110 S.Ct. 1190]; People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 641-643 [276 Cal. Rptr. 874, 802 P.2d 376].) Because of this conclusion, we need not decide whether we should reconsider Brown in light of recent United States Supreme Court decisions. (See People v. Gonzalez, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1231, fn. 30.) On motion for new trial, defendant offered an affidavit of a juror that the disputed instruction (that the jury shall rather than may impose death if aggravating outweigh mitigating factors) affected his penalty verdict. However, Evidence Code section 1150, subdivision (a), excludes such evidence of a juror's mental processes. ( In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 [220 Cal. Rptr. 382, 708 P.2d 1260].) Defendant contends that this statutory exclusion has been constitutionally abrogated by article I, section 28, subdivision (d) of the California Constitution, forbidding the exclusion of relevant evidence in any criminal proceeding. We need not decide the point, for the crime of this case occurred before the effective date of that provision. ( People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 257-263 [193 Cal. Rptr. 692, 667 P.2d 149].)