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):
First, defendant claims the trial court improperly treated the absence of certain mitigating factors as aggravating. (See People v. Davenport, supra, 41 Cal.3d 247, 290, 221 Cal.Rptr. 794, 710 P.2d 861.) Defendant has misconstrued the court's ruling. The court reviewed each of the statutory factors, and referred to the absence of specific factors, but it did not suggest that that absence was itself aggravating. The court did find "in aggravation that the defendant was neither under the influence of any drug nor intoxicated" at the time of the murders, but the comment was merely part of the larger, and proper, finding in aggravation that the murders were "committed solely for the defendant's perverted sexual gratification."
Second, defendant claims the trial court improperly relied on nonstatutory aggravating factors. (See People v. Boyd, supra, 38 Cal.3d 762, 215 Cal.Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782.) In discussing section 190.3, factor (d)--whether defendant was under the influence of any extreme mental or emotional disturbance--the court stated that defendant was not under any such influence, but rather that defendant "has an antisocial personality ... that he is selfish, has no regard for others, no social conscience, has an explosive personality and has an extreme violence potential." The comments were proper. Defendant's selfish motivation is evident from his utter disregard for others to the extent of taking lives for [3 Cal.4th 172] nothing more than his own immediate
Page 630
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.