Does the standard instruction identifying the aggravating and mitigating circumstances need to be changed?

Defendant contends that CALJIC No. 8.85, the standard instruction identifying the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is "constitutionally flawed." The defect, according to defendant, is that the instruction failed to advise the jury which factors were aggravating, which were mitigating, and which could be considered as either mitigating or aggravating depending of the jury's view of the evidence. "As defendant acknowledges, we have in the past repeatedly rejected [this] contention[]. Thus, we have held that the trial court is not obligated to identify which factors are mitigating and which are aggravating . . . ." (People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 532; People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 191.) We decline to reconsider this precedent.

3. CALJIC No. 8.88