Does the court error to instruct the jury to consider age as an aggravating factor?

Defendant contends it was error to instruct the jury without specifying which factors were aggravating and which were mitigating, and without limiting the possible aggravating factors to those listed. We have rejected these contentions. (People v. Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th 543, 601, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347.)

Defendant, arguing that the court's instructions permitted the jury to consider his youth as an aggravating factor,

[120 Cal.Rptr.2d 505]

points to the prosecutor's argument that defendant "was certainly old enough to know better." "Chronological age, however, is neither aggravating nor mitigating, `but is used in the statute "as a metonym for any age-related matter suggested by the evidence or by common experience ... ."` [Citation.] The prosecutor's argument here that defendant was old enough to understand the wrongfulness of his conduct is a permissible age-related inference." (People v. Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th 130, 190, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150, italics omitted.)

[120 Cal.Rptr.2d 505]