Can the prosecution introduce evidence of the specific harm caused by the crime in a capital trial?

"In a capital trial, Eighth Amendment principles ordinarily do not prevent the sentencing authority from considering evidence of the specific harm caused by the crime in question. (Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 825 [111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720].) The high court has explained that the prosecution has a legitimate interest in rebutting the mitigating evidence that the defendant is entitled to introduce by introducing aggravating evidence of the harm caused by the crime, "reminding the sentencer that just as the murderer should be considered as an individual, so too the victim is an individual whose death represents a unique loss to society and in particular to his family." (Ibid. ) [W]e also have found such evidence (and related "victim character" evidence) admissible as a "circumstance of the crime" under section 190.3, factor (a). [Citation.] We have cautioned, however, that allowing such evidence under factor (a) "does not mean that there are no limits on emotional evidence and argument." [Citations.] " The jury must face its obligation soberly and rationally, and should not be given the

[50 Cal.4th 313]

impression that emotion may reign over reason. [Citation.] " ' " (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 12861287, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 543, 156 P.3d 1015, fn. omitted.)