Can a jury consider a defendant's mental state during the penalty phase even though he was found legally sane?

Defendant argues People v. Babbitt, supra, 45 Cal.3d 660, 248 Cal.Rptr. 69, 755 P.2d 253 is distinguishable because we there emphasized that "both the prosecutor and defense counsel informed the jury that defendant's mental condition could properly be considered even though the jury had found him to be legally sane." (Id. at p. 721, 248 Cal.Rptr. 69, 755 P.2d 253, fn. omitted.) By contrast, he claims, "the record reflects that the jury was urged by both parties in closing argument to apply the sanity phase instructions to the penalty phase." For example, he notes the prosecutor "urged the jury to apply the same reasoning it had employed in the sanity phase to its assessment of mitigating factors in the penalty phase."