If defendant means the law does not adequately limit and direct the sentencer's role in determining penalty, what is the current state of the law on penalty?

If defendant means the law does not adequately limit and direct the sentencer's discretion, the claim has already been considered and rejected. ( People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 777-779, 230 Cal.Rptr. 667, 726 P.2d 113.) If he means the court erred in ruling that the jury's verdict was not contrary to law or the evidence presented, the record is otherwise. Finally, if he means the court's reasons for its ruling were inadequate, he is again without support in the record.

We conclude that even if they are considered together, the penalty phase errors in this case do not require reversal. Even when his life is at stake, " '[a] defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.' " (Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 432, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 1059, 31 L.Ed.2d 340.) From our review of the record we are convinced that defendant did indeed receive a fair trial on the issue of penalty.