<p><b>PEOPLE v. LEDESMA</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>Filed 8/17/06</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p>THE PEOPLE, )</p> <br /> <p> )</p> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Respondent, )</p> <br /> <p> ) S014394</p> <br /> <p> v. )</p> <br /> <p> ) </p> <br /> <p>FERMIN RODRIGUEZ LEDESMA, )</p> <br /> <p> ) Santa Clara County</p> <br /> <p> Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 72102</p> <br /> <p>_______________________________________ )<u></u></p> <br /> <p><b>Continue from Part VI ………</b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p>An instruction defining mitigation in terms of <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">moral culpability</a> for the crime might, under some circumstances (such as those present in <i>Lanphear</i>), lead a jury to believe that it could consider only mitigating circumstances that related to the defendant's moral culpability for the crime. But such an instruction does not require reversal if, in context of the instructions as a whole, there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury was misled as to the scope of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">mitigating evidence</a>. (See, e.g., <i>People v. Griffin</i> (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536, 594 [definition of mitigating circumstance as â€