Opinion ID: 1293219
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Delete Assertedly Inapplicable Aggravating Factors/Davenport Error

Text: Defendant asserts the court should have deleted from CALJIC No. 8.84.1 the assertedly inapplicable factors, and that it was error to read to the jury the entire statutory list of factors. We have addressed the identical claim in recent cases in which we have explained that the presentation of the entire range of factors is necessary in order to allow the jury to decide for itself whether asserted factors are present on the record before it, and to weigh those factors accordingly. ( Guzman, supra, 45 Cal.3d 915, 965; see Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d 739, 776-777.) (44) Nonetheless, defendant contends the prosecutor emphasized, to defendant's prejudice, the assertedly inapplicable statutory factors because he used a chalkboard to outline each factor and essentially checked off, under aggravating, each factor for which evidence in mitigation was absent. In People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 288-290 [221 Cal. Rptr. 794, 710 P.2d 861], we held that in the future prosecutors should refrain from arguing that the absence of any given factor could constitute an aggravating factor. As in Ghent, however, the present case was tried before Davenport was decided and, in any event, our review of the record shows that a reasonable jury could not have been misled here. As we stated above, the jury was told that aggravating factors were strictly limited by statute, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and could be considered only if applicable. Here the jury was adequately informed of its sentencing responsibility and of the factors to consider in its sentencing determination and, as noted, it received the admonition to consider only applicable factors. Moreover, on rebuttal, defense counsel emphasized the admonition. Initially, he told the jury that he disagreed with the prosecutor's interpretation of some of the factors as aggravating. Counsel then explained to the jury that the instruction also says you can consider these factors, and it has a small phrase, prepositional phrase, `if applicable.' [¶] What this means is if you find one of these categories doesn't fit into these factors, you are not to regard it. It doesn't mean it is an aggravating factor. We conclude there is no reasonable possibility that the prosecutor's assertedly improper argument influenced the penalty verdict. (See Hamilton, supra, 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1184-1185; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 456 [250 Cal. Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135].)