Opinion ID: 844212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Death Penalty Claims

Text: Our past decisions have repeatedly addressed and rejected the other challenges defendant makes to the death penalty. He states no persuasive reason why we should reconsider settled law. Thus, we continue to hold that California's death penalty law does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution or international law ( People v. Moore, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 417; People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1071-1072 [71 Cal.Rptr.3d 675, 175 P.3d 632]), including article VII of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Dec. 16, 1966) ( People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 595 [112 Cal.Rptr.3d 96, 234 P.3d 377]; People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 885 [95 Cal.Rptr.3d 376, 209 P.3d 596]). California's death penalty statute is not invalid for failing to require (1) written findings or unanimity as to aggravating factors, (2) proof of all aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, (3) findings that aggravation outweighs mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt, or (4) findings that death is the appropriate penalty beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Snow, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 126; accord, People v. Moore, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 415; People v. Bell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 582, 620 [54 Cal.Rptr.3d 453, 151 P.3d 292].) The United States Supreme Court's decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, supra, 530 U.S. 466, and its progeny, do not establish a Sixth Amendment right to determination of particular aggravating factors, or a finding that aggravation outweighs mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt or by a unanimous jury. ( People v. Moore, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 415-416; People v. Taylor (2009) 47 Cal.4th 850, 899 [102 Cal.Rptr.3d 852, 220 P.3d 872].) A defendant's Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights do not require an instruction that mitigating factors need not be found by a unanimous jury or by any particular standard of proof. ( People v. Lomax, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 594; People v. Ervine (2009) 47 Cal.4th 745, 810 [102 Cal.Rptr.3d 786, 220 P.3d 820].) Moreover, here the jury was specially instructed: There is no requirement that all jurors unanimously agree on any matter offered in mitigation or aggravation. Each juror makes an individual evaluation of each fact or circumstance in aggravation or mitigation of penalty. Each juror should weigh and consider such matters regardless of whether or not they are accepted by other jurors. The inclusion of the phrase so substantial in CALJIC No. 8.88, used here (jurors must be persuaded that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that it warrants death instead of life without parole), does not render the instruction impermissibly vague. ( People v. Lomax, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 595; People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 43 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 894, 117 P.3d 591].) The term warrants in the instruction is not overbroad and adequately conveys that the central inquiry is whether death is appropriate. ( People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536, 593 [15 Cal.Rptr.3d 743, 93 P.3d 344]; People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281, 315-316 [3 Cal.Rptr.2d 81, 821 P.2d 585].) CALJIC No. 8.88 is not unconstitutional for failing to inform the jury it must return a sentence of life without the possibility of parole if it determines the circumstances in mitigation outweighed those in aggravation. ( People v. Lomax, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 595; People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 42.) The instruction is not defective for failing to recite that neither party in a capital case bears the burden of persuading the jury of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the death penalty. We have long held that because the assessment of aggravating and mitigating circumstances required of penalty jurors is inherently normative, not factual, it is not susceptible to a burden of proof quantification. ( People v. Moore, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 415; People v. Bell, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 620.) The failure to require intercase proportionality review does not render the death penalty law unconstitutional. ( People v. Moore, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 417; People v. Lomax, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 595; People v. Hamilton (2009) 45 Cal.4th 863, 960 [89 Cal.Rptr.3d 286, 200 P.3d 898].)