Is a defendant entitled to a sua sponte or a jury's interpretation of the terms "aggravating" and "mitigating" to assist the jury in determining penalty?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Johnson, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 593, 6 Cal.4th 1, 859 P.2d 673 (Cal. 1993):

Defendant asserts the court erred in failing to define the terms "aggravating" and "mitigating" to assist the jury in determining penalty. We have held that the court need not give such instructions, even on defendant's request. (See People v. Malone (1988) 47 Cal.3d 1, 55, 252 Cal.Rptr. 525, 762 P.2d 1249.) It follows that no sua sponte instructions were required in this case.

E. Failure to Give Timely Notice of Aggravating Evidence

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

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.

Other Questions

Is a defendant's claim that the court should have deleted reference to irrelevant mitigating factors from the instructions given to the jury regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in determining the appropriate penalty? (California, United States of America)

What is the test for determining whether a jury should consider a defendant's mental state as a mitigating factor in determining the penalty? (California, United States of America)

Does the fact that a greater number of aggravating than mitigating circumstances may be established in aggravating circumstances determine whether a lower term is justified? (California, United States of America)

Is a defendant's failure to testify at the penalty phase an error not to instruct the jury to refrain from drawing any inference from the fact that defendant did not testify at penalty phase? (California, United States of America)

Does a jury have to consider whether a defendant's evidence of intoxication in mitigation constitute aggravation or aggravation? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted section 190.3(1) of the California Criminal Code when determining aggravation and mitigation factors in aggravation? (California, United States of America)

In a penalty case, in what circumstances will the court allow the jury to instruct the jury on a defendant's failure to testify in the penalty phase? (California, United States of America)

In a motor vehicle accident case, in what circumstances will a jury consider whether there is an aggravating or mitigating circumstance in determining which of the two most serious penalties apply? (California, United States of America)

Is a defendant entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth or falsity of allegations of jury misconduct on the grounds that two jurors discussed their personal experiences with drugs and the future of the death penalty? (California, United States of America)

Does section 190.3 of the California Criminal Code require a penalty phase jury to consider a defendant's unadjudicated criminal activity as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase? (California, United States of America)

Is a defendant entitled to a sua sponte or a jury's interpretation of the terms "aggravating" and "mitigating" to assist the jury in determining penalty?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources