Opinion ID: 2637243
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other Penalty Contentions

Text: Defendant reiterates many contentions we have repeatedly rejected. The jury need not make written findings, or achieve unanimity as to specific aggravating circumstances, or find beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance is proved (except for other crimes), that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances, or that death is the appropriate penalty. [Citations.] The death penalty statute is not unconstitutional for failing to provide the jury with instructions of the burden of proof and standard of proof for finding aggravating and mitigating circumstances in reaching a penalty determination. ( People v. Morrison (2004) 34 Cal.4th 698, 730-731, 21 Cal. Rptr.3d 682, 101 P.3d 568.) Recent United States Supreme Court decisions do not undermine these conclusions. ( People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 212, 59 Cal. Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763; People v. Morrison, supra, at p. 731, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 101 P.3d 568.) The court need not instruct the jury on the presumption of life. ( People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 271, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 66 P.3d 1123.) CALJIC No. 8.88, which the court gave, properly instructs the jury on its sentencing discretion and the nature of its deliberative process. ( People v. Prieto, supra, at p. 264, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 66 P.3d 1123; People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 161-165, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418, 954 P.2d 990; People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1242-1244, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 920 P.2d 1254.) Section 190.3, factor (a), is not unconstitutionally overbroad, arbitrary, capricious, or vague. ( People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1165, 40 Cal. Rptr.3d 118, 129 P.3d 321.) The jury's consideration of unadjudicated criminal conduct in aggravation is constitutional, and jury unanimity regarding such conduct is not required. ( People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 402, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 93 P.3d 244.) The trial court need not delete section 190.3's sentencing factors that may not apply. ( People v. Schmeck (2005) 37 Cal.4th 240, 305, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 397, 118 P.3d 451.) The trial court need not instruct the jury which factors it may consider only in mitigation. ( People v. Maury, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 443-444, 133 Cal. Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1.) The use of such adjectives in the sentencing factors as extreme (§ 190.3, factors (d), (g)) and substantial ( id., factor (g)) is constitutional. ( People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 614-615, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 133 P.3d 1076.) Equal protection principles do not require this court to give capital defendants the same sentence review afforded other felons under the determinate sentencing law. ( People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 970, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 70 P.3d 277.)