In what circumstances will a jury find that a prosecutor's comment that a victim consented to the crime was not an aggravating factor under section 190.3 aggravation be harmless?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Clark, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 554, 3 Cal.4th 41, 833 P.2d 561 (Cal. 1992):

In People v. Kimble, supra, 44 Cal.3d 480, 505-506, 244 Cal.Rptr. 148, 749 P.2d 803, we found similar error harmless because: (1) the erroneous comment was brief; (2) the prosecutor emphasized that only the crimes for which the defendant was being tried were before it for consideration; and (3) the jury could have fully considered the facts in any event under factor (a) of section 190.3. Here, the prosecutor's comment was reasonably brief. He distinguished between the crimes for which defendant was tried and those additional crimes which were introduced at the penalty phase. He appeared to separate the aggravating effect of the underlying crimes from the special circumstances and the less serious offenses of which defendant had been convicted, all of which were in themselves proper matters for the jury to consider. Most importantly, the jury properly considered the facts of each of the many murders. "In view of the properly admitted aggravating factors presented to the jury ... we find it inconceivable that the jury would have reached a different verdict in the absence of the improper argument; accordingly, there was no prejudice." (People v. Kimble, supra, 44 Cal.3d 480, 506, 244 Cal.Rptr. 148, 749 P.2d 803.) We reach the same conclusion here.

8. Davenport Error

Defendant next argues that the factors in aggravation were artificially inflated when the prosecutor argued that the absence of mitigation as to section 190.3, factors (e) [whether the victim was a participant or consented], (f) [whether defendant reasonably believed there was a moral justification for his conduct], (g) [whether defendant acted under duress or domination of another], and (j) [whether defendant was an accomplice or minor participant] was itself aggravating. He correctly argues that we found such argument improper in People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 290, 221 Cal.Rptr. 794, 710 P.2d 861.

Other Questions


Does the prosecutor improperly argue that Vo's failure to show mercy to the victim be considered as a factor in aggravation? (California, United States of America)
Does section 190.3, subdivision (k) of the California Criminal Code require a jury to consider "any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime" as a mitigating factor in sentencing? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 190.3(1) of the California Criminal Code when determining aggravation and mitigation factors in aggravation? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will a defendant plead guilty to a crime charged or to any other crime under California Evidence Code section 1153.4? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will a trial court be required to identify a particular sentencing factor as an aggravating or mitigating factor? (California, United States of America)
When faced with a prosecutor's comment that a defendant's refusal to testify may constitute a harmless error, is this harmless error? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will a jury consider a defendant's prior armed robbery convictions as an aggravating factor in determining that he committed two other crimes? (California, United States of America)
Does section 8.85 of the California Criminal Code, which instructed the jury to consider whether or not certain mitigating factors were present, unconstitutionally suggest that the absence of such factors amounted to aggravation? (California, United States of America)
Does the instruction in section 190.3 of the California Criminal Code specify which of the factors aggravating and mitigating are aggravating? (California, United States of America)
When faced with a prosecutor's comment that a defendant's refusal to testify may constitute a harmless error, is this harmless error? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.