permissible aggravating factors in California

2013(Pe ople v. Valencia (2008) 43 Cal.4th 268, 311 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 , 180 P.3d 351 ].) “ ‘ “[T]he statutory instruction to the jury to consider ‘whether or not’ certain mitigating factors were present did not impermissibly invite the jury to aggravate the sentence upon the basis of nonexistent or irrational aggravating factors. [Citations.]” ’ ” (People v. Parson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 332, 369 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 , 187 P.3d 1 ].) Moreover, here the trial court instructed the jury: “The permissible aggravating factors are limited to those aggravating factors upon which you have been specifically

2013(Pe ople v. Valencia (2008) 43 Cal.4th 268, 311 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 , 180 P.3d 351 ].) “ ‘ “[T]he statutory instruction to the jury to consider ‘whether or not’ certain mitigating factors were present did not impermissibly invite the jury to aggravate the sentence upon the basis of nonexistent or irrational aggravating factors. [Citations.]” ’ ” (People v. Parson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 332, 369 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 , 187 P.3d 1 ].) Moreover, here the trial court instructed the jury: “The permissible aggravating factors are limited to those aggravating factors upon which you have been specifically

2013(People v. Carter (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 522, 531, fn. 6 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 805 ] [it is appellant’s burden to present a record adequate for review and to affirmatively demonstrate error], citing Denham v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 564 .) Defendant next contends the court erred by failing to give an additional instruction he proposed regarding aggravating and mitigating factors, which read as follows: “The permissible aggravating factors which you may consider are limited to those aggravating factors upon which you have been specifically instructed.

2013(People v. Carter (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 522, 531, fn. 6 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 805 ] [it is appellant’s burden to present a record adequate for review and to affirmatively demonstrate error], citing Denham v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 564 .) Defendant next contends the court erred by failing to give an additional instruction he proposed regarding aggravating and mitigating factors, which read as follows: “The permissible aggravating factors which you may consider are limited to those aggravating factors upon which you have been specifically instructed.

2013(Pe ople v. Valencia (2008) 43 Cal.4th 268, 311 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 , 180 P.3d 351 ].) “ ‘ “[T]he statutory instruction to the jury to consider ‘whether or not’ certain mitigating factors were present did not impermissibly invite the jury to aggravate the sentence upon the basis of nonexistent or irrational aggravating factors. [Citations.]” ’ ” (People v. Parson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 332, 369 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 , 187 P.3d 1 ].) Moreover, here the trial court instructed the jury: “The permissible aggravating factors are limited to those aggravating factors upon which you have been specifically

2013(Pe ople v. Valencia (2008) 43 Cal.4th 268, 311 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 , 180 P.3d 351 ].) “ ‘ “[T]he statutory instruction to the jury to consider ‘whether or not’ certain mitigating factors were present did not impermissibly invite the jury to aggravate the sentence upon the basis of nonexistent or irrational aggravating factors. [Citations.]” ’ ” (People v. Parson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 332, 369 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 , 187 P.3d 1 ].) Moreover, here the trial court instructed the jury: “The permissible aggravating factors are limited to those aggravating factors upon which you have been specifically

2013Therefore, the evidence which has been presented to you regarding defendant’s background which does not fall into one of the limited aggravating factors may only be considered by you as mitigating evidence.” The court did not err, because the requested instruction was “largely duplicative.” (People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1230 [ 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 553 , 70 P.3d 981 ].) We also reject defendant’s assertion the court violated his right to due process of law under the federal Constitution by failing to give his proposed instruction that the jury “may consider the fact that defendant’s acco

2013Therefore, the evidence which has been presented to you regarding defendant’s background which does not fall into one of the limited aggravating factors may only be considered by you as mitigating evidence.” The court did not err, because the requested instruction was “largely duplicative.” (People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1230 [ 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 553 , 70 P.3d 981 ].) We also reject defendant’s assertion the court violated his right to due process of law under the federal Constitution by failing to give his proposed instruction that the jury “may consider the fact that defendant’s acco

2007Therefore, the defendant's background may only be considered by you as mitigating evidence." We have in the past upheld the refusal to give materially indistinguishable instructions. ( People v. Hinton, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 912, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149 , 126 P.3d 981 ; People v. Ochoa, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 457, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 , 28 P.3d 78 .) A defendant's criminal history, which is part of his background, may be considered in aggravation. (§ 190.3, factors (b), (c).) *194 In sum, the trial court here did not err in rejecting the above discussed jury instructions that defendant requested

2007Therefore, the defendant's background may only be considered by you as mitigating evidence." We have in the past upheld the refusal to give materially indistinguishable instructions. ( People v. Hinton, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 912, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149 , 126 P.3d 981 ; People v. Ochoa, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 457, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 , 28 P.3d 78 .) A defendant's criminal history, which is part of his background, may be considered in aggravation. (§ 190.3, factors (b), (c).) *194 In sum, the trial court here did not err in rejecting the above discussed jury instructions that defendant requested

2007Therefore, the defendant's background may only be considered by you as mitigating evidence." We have in the past upheld the refusal to give materially indistinguishable instructions. ( People v. Hinton, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 912, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149 , 126 P.3d 981 ; People v. Ochoa, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 457, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 , 28 P.3d 78 .) A defendant's criminal history, which is part of his background, may be considered in aggravation. (§ 190.3, factors (b), (c).) *194 In sum, the trial court here did not err in rejecting the above discussed jury instructions that defendant requested

2007Therefore, the defendant's background may only be considered by you as mitigating evidence." We have in the past upheld the refusal to give materially indistinguishable instructions. ( People v. Hinton, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 912, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149 , 126 P.3d 981 ; People v. Ochoa, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 457, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 , 28 P.3d 78 .) A defendant's criminal history, which is part of his background, may be considered in aggravation. (§ 190.3, factors (b), (c).) *194 In sum, the trial court here did not err in rejecting the above discussed jury instructions that defendant requested

2003(E.g., People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 395 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 , 28 P.3d 34 ; People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1217, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 ; People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 909 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 799 P.2d 1282 .) Defendant cites People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86 , 5 Cal. Rptr.2d 796 , 825 P.2d 781 , to support his theory the court erred in failing to instruct that evidence of a defendant's background can only be mitigating unless it falls under one of the permissible aggravating factors listed in section 190.3.

2003(E.g., People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 395 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 , 28 P.3d 34 ; People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1217, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 ; People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 909 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 799 P.2d 1282 .) Defendant cites People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86 , 5 Cal. Rptr.2d 796 , 825 P.2d 781 , to support his theory the court erred in failing to instruct that evidence of a defendant's background can only be mitigating unless it falls under one of the permissible aggravating factors listed in section 190.3.

2003(E.g., People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 395 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 , 28 P.3d 34 ; People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1217, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 ; People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 909 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 799 P.2d 1282 .) Defendant cites People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86 , 5 Cal. Rptr.2d 796 , 825 P.2d 781 , to support his theory the court erred in failing to instruct that evidence of a defendant's background can only be mitigating unless it falls under one of the permissible aggravating factors listed in section 190.3.

2003(E.g., People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 395 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 , 28 P.3d 34 ; People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1217, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 ; People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 909 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 799 P.2d 1282 .) Defendant cites People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86 , 5 Cal. Rptr.2d 796 , 825 P.2d 781 , to support his theory the court erred in failing to instruct that evidence of a defendant's background can only be mitigating unless it falls under one of the permissible aggravating factors listed in section 190.3.

2003(E.g., People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 395 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 , 28 P.3d 34 ; People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1217, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 ; People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 909 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 799 P.2d 1282 .) Defendant cites People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86 , 5 Cal. Rptr.2d 796 , 825 P.2d 781 , to support his theory the court erred in failing to instruct that evidence of a defendant's background can only be mitigating unless it falls under one of the permissible aggravating factors listed in section 190.3.

2003(E.g., People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 395 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 , 28 P.3d 34 ; People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1217, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 ; People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 909 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 799 P.2d 1282 .) Defendant cites People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86 , 5 Cal. Rptr.2d 796 , 825 P.2d 781 , to support his theory the court erred in failing to instruct that evidence of a defendant's background can only be mitigating unless it falls under one of the permissible aggravating factors listed in section 190.3.

1992(Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 518; Boyd, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 775-776.) Even if we assume the court erred, however, we see no reasonable possibility that the jury improperly considered evidence of Reilly’s life-style as an aggravating circumstance.

1992Reilly correctly asserts that evidence of his background can be only a mitigating factor because the permissible aggravating factors are limited to those listed in section 190.3. ( Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 518; Boyd, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 775-776.) Even if we assume the court erred, however, we see no reasonable possibility that the jury improperly considered evidence of Reilly's life-style as an aggravating circumstance.