People v. Lanphear

• Decision Date: 04 June 1984
• Docket Number: Cr. 22458,C
• Citation: 203 Cal.Rptr. 122,36 Cal.3d 163,680 P.2d 1081
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 680 P.2d 1081 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ronald Eugene LANPHEAR, Defendant and Appellant. In re Ronald Eugene LANPHEAR on Habeas Corpus. r. 22916.

Page 122

203 Cal.Rptr. 122

36 Cal.3d 163, 680 P.2d 1081

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ronald Eugene LANPHEAR, Defendant and Appellant.

In re Ronald Eugene LANPHEAR on Habeas Corpus.

Cr. 22458, Cr. 22916.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

June 4, 1984.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1984.

Edward H. Schulman, Deputy Public Defender, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

Jay M. Bloom, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Diego, for plaintiff and respondent.

GRODIN, Justice.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict imposing the penalty of death. This appeal is automatic. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) At a prior trial defendant was convicted and sentenced to death for murder with special circumstances in that the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated, and personally committed during the commission of a robbery (former Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (c)(3)(i)) and the jury fixed the penalty at death. On appeal this court reversed the judgment as to penalty only. (People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 163 Cal.Rptr. 601, 608 P.2d 689.)

In this appeal, which we have consolidated with a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which defendant challenges only the instant penalty trial, several claims of error are made. We need consider only one--that the judgment must be reversed because of an erroneous jury instruction not to consider sympathy. In this respect the instruction and potential prejudice are indistinguishable from People v. Easley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 858, 196 Cal.Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813, which controls this appeal and compels reversal of the judgment.

In introductory remarks to the prospective jurors during the voir dire, the court said: "You will be instructed over and over again that you are not to base your decision in this matter on sympathy for the defendant or sympathy for the victim. You are not to base your decision on passion or prejudice or public opinion or public feeling." (Emphasis added.) Later, following the completion of testimony and closing arguments, the court commenced its charge to the jury with CALJIC No. 1.00, which included this admonition: "As jurors, you must not be influenced by pity for a defendant or by prejudice against him. You must not be swayed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling." (Emphasis added.) As we concluded in Easley, federal constitutional law forbids an instruction which denies a capital defendant the right to have the jury consider any "sympathy factor" raised by the evidence when determining the appropriate penalty. (34 Cal.3d 858, 876, 196 Cal.Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813.) The trial court erred, therefore, in instructing in the language of CALJIC No. 1.00 in this penalty trial.

The People contend that any prejudicial effect of these instructions was dispelled by (1) the instruction, given as part of former CALJIC No. 8.88.1 (1978) (predecessor of CALJIC No. 8.84.1) that in determining the penalty, the jury should "consider all the evidence which has been received during the trial" and (2) the following special instructions which were given at the request of defendant:

"Aggravating circumstances are circumstances attending the commission of the crime which increases [sic] its guilt or enormity, or adds [sic] to its injurious consequences, but which is [sic] above and beyond the essential constituents of the crime itself. [p] Mitigating circumstances are circumstances that do not constitute a justification or excuse of the offense in question, but which, in fairness and mercy, must be considered in extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability. [p] In deciding whether the Defendant should be sentenced to death or to life in prison without the possibility of parole, you must weigh the mitigating circumstances against the aggravating circumstances that you find to be established by the evidence." (Emphasis added.)

We rejected a similar argument in Easley where the same instruction that sympathy should not influence the verdict was given, pointing out that under controlling federal precedent instructions must eliminate " 'any legitimate basis for finding ambiguity concerning the factors actually considered by [the sentencing body in imposing a judgment of death].' " (34 Cal.3d 858, 879, 196 Cal.Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813.) Here, as in Easley, the jury was not instructed that it could consider any aspect of the defendant's character or background in determining whether death was the appropriate penalty. Rather the extenuation instructions given suggested that only circumstances that lessen moral culpability are to be considered. That error was compounded by the repeated admonition that the jury should not be influenced by pity or sympathy for the defendant.

Sympathy is not itself a mitigating "factor" or "circumstance," but an emotion. Recognition that a jury's exercise of sentencing discretion in a capital case may be influenced by a sympathetic response to mitigating evidence is entirely consistent with that observation. The jury is permitted to consider mitigating evidence relating to the defendant's character and background precisely because that evidence may arouse "sympathy" or "compassion" for the defendant.

Using the term "sympathy factor" in Easley and in People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21, 58, 188 Cal.Rptr. 77, 655 P.2d 279, as a shorthand reference to the range of mitigating factors or circumstances which the jury must be permitted to consider, we explained that both California precedent and controlling decisions of the United States Supreme Court not only permit, but mandate freedom on the part of the jury to act on the basis of sympathy or compassion when that sympathy is a reaction to evidence regarding the defendant's character or background. That evidence, as distinguished from mitigating circumstances related to the offense itself, may not reduce culpability, but it must nonetheless be considered by the jury. (Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982) 455 U.S. 104, 113-115, 102 S.Ct. 869, 875-876, 71 L.Ed.2d 1.) It necessarily follows that the jury must be free to respond to it.

Eddings and Lockett v. Ohio (1978) 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 "make it clear that in a capital case the defendant is constitutionally entitled to have the sentencing body consider any 'sympathy' factor raised by the evidence before it. As the plurality opinion in Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) 428 U.S. 280, 304, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 2991, 49 L.Ed.2d 944, emphasized: 'A process that accords no significance to relevant facets of the character and record of the individual offender or the circumstances of the particular offense excludes from consideration in fixing the ultimate punishment of death the possibility of compassionate or mitigating factors stemming from the diverse frailties of humankind .... [I]n capital cases the fundamental respect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment [citation] requires consideration of the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense as a constitutionally indispensible part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death.' (Italics added.) ... 'It is not only appropriate, but necessary, that the jury weigh the sympathetic elements of defendant's background against those that may offend the conscience.' " (People v. Robertson, supra, 33 Cal.3d 21, 58, 188 Cal.Rptr. 77, 655 P.2d 279.)

As these cases make clear, the jury is obliged to weigh mitigating evidence against aggravating evidence in exercising its sentencing discretion. Although the law seeks to ensure that this discretion is not exercised arbitrarily, i.e., without regard to the evidence, the weighing process is not mechanical. If a mitigating circumstance or an aspect of the defendant's background or his character called to the attention of the jury by the evidence or its observation of the defendant arouses sympathy or compassion such as to persuade the jury that death is not the appropriate penalty, the jury may act in response thereto and opt instead for life without possibility of parole.

This constitutionally mandated freedom to respond to sympathy aroused by mitigating evidence in no way overlooks sympathy that the jury may feel for the victim. It would be surprising if a jury were not sympathetic toward the victim of a homicide. However, if the mitigating evidence does give rise to compassion for the defendant the jury may reject death as the penalty. Sympathy for the victim and compassion for the defendant are not mutually exclusive emotions.

The instructions in this case did not make clear to the jury its option to reject death if the evidence aroused sympathy or compassion. The instructions were inconsistent and ambiguous in advising both that the jury must not be swayed by pity or influenced by sympathy for the defendant, and that it should consider circumstances which "in fairness and mercy, must be considered in extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability." Because they also failed to tell the jury that any aspect of the defendant's character or background could be considered mitigating and could be a basis for rejecting death even though it did not necessarily lessen culpability, the instructions were constitutionally inadequate. ¹

The People argue that these defects were not prejudicial. We cannot make such a determination in this case. The defendant presented evidence regarding his background and circumstances which could have been considered by the jury as demonstrating redeeming features of his character or as factors warranting sympathy. That evidence showed that defendant was raised by his father who left defendant's mother when defendant was three because he did not want to be tied down...