Is a defendant's claim that the court should have deleted reference to irrelevant mitigating factors from the instructions given to the jury regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in determining the appropriate penalty?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Jennings, 251 Cal.Rptr. 278, 46 Cal.3d 963, 760 P.2d 475 (Cal. 1988):

Defendant's claim that the court should have deleted reference to irrelevant mitigating factors from the instructions given to the jury regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in determining the appropriate penalty is one rejected by this court in several recent cases. As we explained in People v. Melton, supra, 44 Cal.3d 713, 770-771, 244 Cal.Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741, giving instructions as to all of the statutory aggravating and mitigating factors ensures that the jury is aware of the complete range of factors that the state considers relevant to the penalty determination. With that knowledge the jury is better able to place

Page 294

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.

Other Questions

What is the test for determining whether a jury should consider a defendant's mental state as a mitigating factor in determining the penalty? (California, United States of America)

Is it presumed the court properly exercised its legal duty to consider all possible mitigating and aggravating factors in determining the appropriate sentence? (California, United States of America)

Does Defendant have a valid claim to be able to claim damages from a defendant who has been found guilty of a similar claim against the Defendant? (California, United States of America)

Does a failure of instruction to require a jury to produce written findings by the jury regarding the aggravating factors found and considered in returning a death sentence violate a defendant's constitutional right to meaningful appellate review? (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 Defendant have a claim that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it could impose the death penalty only if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that death is appropriate? (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)

Is a defendant's Special Instruction No. 3 required to inform the jury that it is free to select a sentence of life without parole even if the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors? (California, United States of America)

How have the courts treated the nonstatutory aggravating factor in determining that a defendant's remorse was not sincere at the penalty phase? (California, United States of America)

Is a defendant's claim that the court should have deleted reference to irrelevant mitigating factors from the instructions given to the jury regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in determining the appropriate penalty?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources