California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. McDowell, 250 Cal.Rptr. 530, 46 Cal.3d 551, 763 P.2d 1269 (Cal. 1988):
Nonetheless, the court's handling of the matter, directing the jury to the applicable instructions, does not appear inappropriate. In a slightly different context, we noted that, "the aggravating and mitigating nature of these various factors should be self-evident to any reasonable person within the context of each particular case." (People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 316, 168 Cal.Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149.) Here, the court advised the jury to reread the list of sentencing factors (which, significantly, included the expanded "catchall" provision factor (k)), and to recall that even one mitigating circumstance may outweigh several aggravating circumstances. Thus, the jurors should have become well aware that defendant's background and character could be considered as circumstances in mitigation, and that they could properly determine that these circumstances were entitled to a weight exceeding the weight of the aggravating circumstances. The jurors deliberated for another day before the original holdout juror apparently concluded that the aggravating circumstances in this case outweighed the mitigating aspects of defendant's background. We conclude that the court's response, which could have been more explicit, adequately informed the jury regarding its consideration of defendant's mitigating evidence.
[46 Cal.3d 579]
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.