Can a juror refuse to amend "Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance" from "Extreme, extreme, extreme mental or emotional disturbance" to "Aggravation"?

Again notwithstanding defendant's claim, a reasonable juror could not have believed--contrary to governing law (see People v. Davenport, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 288-289, 221 Cal.Rptr. 794, 710 P.2d 861 (plur. opn.))--that the absence of mitigation amounted to the presence of aggravation. The instructions made plain that aggravation required the existence of "circumstances attending the commission of the offenses in question which increase their guilt or enormity or adds [sic ] to their injurious consequences, but which are above and beyond the essential elements of the offenses themselves"--and not merely the [52 Cal.3d 803] inonexistence of "circumstances ... which, in fairness and mercy, may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability." ¹¹

3. Claim of Error on Refusal to Delete "Extreme" From "Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance"