Opinion ID: 2585503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Refusal to Permit Defendant to Introduce Evidence of the Living Conditions of a Life Prisoner

Text: Defendant moved to admit evidence of the security surrounding a life prisoner in prison in order to counter the prosecution's anticipated evidence concerning defendant's future dangerousness if sentenced to life in prison. The trial court denied the request, finding the evidence irrelevant. Defendant now contends his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as analogous provisions of the California Constitution, were violated by this ruling. We disagree. We have previously held that evidence of the conditions of confinement that a defendant will experience if sentenced to life imprisonment without parole is irrelevant to the jury's penalty determination because it does not relate to the defendant's character, culpability, or the circumstances of the offense. ( People v. Quartermain (1997) 16 Cal.4th 600, 632, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 609, 941 P.2d 788.) Defendant recognizes the weight of authority is against him, but urges this court to reconsider the issue. We find no persuasive reason to do so; defendant remained free to argue that aspects of his history or background supported the notion he would not be dangerous in the future, thereby answering the prosecution's argument to the contrary. While defendant might have an interest in telling the jurors of ... the rigors of confinement in order to impress upon them the gravity of their responsibility, that interest could be satisfied in his argument. ( People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 877-878, 277 Cal.Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906.)