The opinion
KENNARD, Acting C. J.,
Concurring.—I concur in the majority opinion, except for its analysis concerning the exclusion of defendant’s rebuttal victim impact evidence. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 564-566.) On that issue, I agree with the majority that the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence defendant offered to rebut the prosecution’s victim impact evidence, a conclusion that is consistent with the views I expressed in my concurring and dissenting opinion in People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 372-376 [33 Cal.Rptr.3d. 509, 118 P.3d 545 ], Defendant here did not seek to introduce the evidence in question as evidence pertaining to the circumstances of the crime *572 under Penal Code section 190.3, subdivision (a), and it was not relevant to rebut the prosecution’s limited victim impact evidence. (People v. Harris, supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. 372-376 (conc. & dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).)
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied April 16, 2014. Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., did not participate therein.