When will a jury consider a defendant's mental state as a mitigating factor in determining his mental state?

Defendant contends these arguments prejudiced him by preventing the jury from considering his mental disturbance and age as mitigating factors. The Attorney [294 P.3d 1029]General correctly notes that defendant has forfeited these claims by failing to object below. ( People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 853854, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 840, 996 P.2d 1152.) In any event, they lack merit. No evidence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance was presented at either phase of trial. Defendant claims mental disturbance could be inferred from his behavior and his childhood experience of being raised by a drug-addicted prostitute. Such an inference would have been entirely speculative, and defendant did not urge it at trial. Nor did the prosecutor tell the jury it was barred from considering mental disturbance as a mitigating factor. To the contrary, he said it was a factor in mitigation, but did not apply on the facts of this case. There was nothing improper about that assertion.