Opinion ID: 821517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged misconduct by the prosecutor

Text: during the penalty phase trial Under section 190.3, factor (b), criminal activity by a defendant involving the use of violence is a statutory aggravating factor that the jury must consider when deciding whether to impose the death penalty. As mentioned previously, the prosecution presented three examples of such uncharged postarrest conduct by defendant. When examining witnesses at the penalty phase trial concerning the first two of those events, described ante, part I.D. — the county jail dorm fight in which defendant and other Black inmates fought a group of Hispanic inmates, and the June 1991 attack by defendant and four other inmates on Russell Cross, after Cross sat on the bunk of a Black inmate — the prosecutor elicited testimony from witnesses that those two attacks appeared to be racially motivated. Defendant now characterizes this as an irrelevant and inflammatory interjection by the prosecutor, designed to imply to the “white and Hispanic jury” that the underlying charged offenses were themselves racially motivated, and thereby to insert racial animosity into the penalty trial. Defendant failed to object to this cross-examination or seek an appropriate admonition at the time, but quite soon after — at the commencement of the afternoon session following the now challenged cross-examination and testimony — he moved for a mistrial, contending that the prosecutor had attempted to prejudice the jury by his cross-examination. The trial court denied the motion. We agree with defendant that the claim is not forfeited. The People assert that “the prosecutor merely adduced unobjectionable eyewitness testimony that when [defendant] took active part in two postarrest violent attacks on jail inmates, those attacks appeared to be racially motivated. That testimony was relevant to explain the circumstances of the attacks and 44 [defendant‟s] motive for the assaults” — neither of which, the People argue, “would make sense without that information.” Certainly section 190.3, factor (b) did not bar the prosecution from eliciting evidence of the circumstances surrounding the criminal violence, or limit the prosecution to presenting merely the bare facts of the criminal violence. (See People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1377 [noting that “the issue of other violent criminal activity encompasses not only the existence of such activity but also all the pertinent circumstances of that activity” and that it is appropriate for the prosecution to place evidence of violent criminal activity into context].)17 We find no misconduct. B. Death sentence for “felony murder simpliciter” and alleged violation of international law Defendant notes that his eligibility under California law for the death penalty hinges on his conviction of felony murder and the related robbery-murder special circumstance. He observes that under state law, a defendant who is convicted of murder during the commission or attempted commission of robbery may be executed even if the killing was unintentional or accidental — which, as noted earlier, he claims the killing in this case was. He asserts that the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution, and international law, both require additionally a finding that he killed with some culpable state of mind, such as intent to kill or at least recklessness, before he can be subjected to the death 17 Defendant‟s related contention that the prosecutor‟s conduct violated international law fails because (1) “ „[i]nternational law does not prohibit a sentence of death rendered in accordance with state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements‟ ” (People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 404 (Brown), and (2) we find no such state or federal law defect in this case. (See Taylor, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 661; Brown, at pp. 403-404.) 45 penalty. Defendant notes that only five states allow capital punishment for a felony murderer without regard to his or her state of mind, and argues that the possibility he killed accidentally renders the death penalty disproportionate and unconstitutional. We have long recognized that imposition of a death sentence premised on felony murder, in circumstances in which, as here, the defendant is the actual killer, is indeed constitutional. (E.g., Taylor, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 661 [when a defendant is charged with special circumstance felony murder, the prosecution need prove neither “intent to kill nor reckless indifference to life” as a required element of the offense so long as “the defendant is the actual killer” of the victim]; accord, Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th 936, 905.)18 Because, as observed ante, footnote 17, international law does not prohibit a sentence of death rendered in accordance with state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements, defendant‟s related international law claim also fails. (See Taylor, supra, at p. 661.) C. Absence of “intercase proportionality review” Defendant asserts that the federal Constitution requires “intercase proportionality” review — a comparison of the imposed sentence with sentences in other similar cases. He argues that failure to provide such review on appeal violates his “Eighth Amendment right to be protected from the arbitrary and capricious imposition of capital punishment and also violates his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law.” 18 By contrast, when the defendant is an aider and abettor rather than the actual killer, intent to kill, or at least reckless indifference to human life, must be proved. (People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1146-1147; § 190.2, subd. (c).) 46 The absence of a comparative proportionality review under California‟s death penalty law does not render the law or sentence unconstitutional. (See Pulley v. Harris (1984) 465 U.S. 37, 50-51; People v. Verdugo (2010) 50 Cal.4th 263, 305, and cases cited.) “ „Nor does the circumstance that intercase proportionality review is conducted in noncapital cases cause the death penalty statute to violate defendant‟s right to equal protection and due process.‟ ” (Verdugo, supra, at p. 305; see People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 590.) D. General challenges to the death penalty statute and instructions Defendant raises several unmeritorious challenges to California‟s death penalty statute, section 190 et seq., and the related standard CALJIC sentencing instructions. Contrary to his assertions, “[t]he death penalty law is not unconstitutional for failing to impose a burden of proof — whether beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence — as to the existence of aggravating circumstances, the greater weight of aggravating circumstances over mitigating circumstances, or the appropriateness of a death sentence. [Citation.] Unlike the statutory schemes in other states cited by defendant, in California „ “the sentencing function is inherently moral and normative, not factual” [citation] and, hence, not susceptible to a burden-of-proof quantification.‟ [Citations.]” (Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 401.) Moreover, “[t]he jury is not constitutionally required to achieve unanimity as to aggravating circumstances.” (Id., at p. 402; see People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 489, and cases cited.) Defendant asserts the trial court erred by instructing pursuant to CALJIC No. 8.84 (“Penalty Trial — Introductory”), setting out the penalties of “death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without possibility of parole . . . .” He observes that during jury selection, one of the prospective jurors expressed 47 concern that a person sentenced to life imprisonment could be paroled from prison. Thereafter, at the request of both parties, immediately prior to the exercise of peremptory challenges the trial court informed the jury that “life without possibility of parole means just that, life without possibility of parole.” Defendant complains that a similar instruction was not given prior to penalty phase deliberations, advising the jury that he “would never be considered for release on parole.” Instead, prior to deliberations, the trial court simply instructed the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 8.84, which, defendant asserts, inadequately informed the jury that a sentence of confinement in state prison for life without possibility of parole would render him ineligible for release from prison on parole. We repeatedly have rejected this claim and versions of it. (People v. Ervine (2009) 47 Cal.4th 745, 798; People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 269-271.) Defendant also faults the trial court for instructing pursuant to CALJIC No. 8.85 (“Penalty Trial — Factors for Consideration”), concerning the statutory mitigating and aggravating sentencing factors set out in section 190.3 to be considered in determining whether to impose a sentence of death or life without possibility of parole, and CALJIC No. 8.88 (“Penalty Trial — Concluding Instruction”), concerning the jury‟s obligations in reaching a penalty determination. Regarding CALJIC No. 8.85, defendant reasserts claims rejected many times previously. We adhere to our prior decisions in rejecting defendant‟s argument that section 190.3, factor (a) — the “circumstances of the crime” factor — is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, and fails to adequately narrow the bases for imposing the death penalty, thus rendering the sentence arbitrary and capricious. (See People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301,1363-1364; People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1137; see also Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 403404.) Nor was the jury improperly instructed on the “force or violence” factor 48 under section 190.3, factor (b). We have rejected claims that (1) the jury must be instructed to unanimously agree that the defendant committed each alleged act of violence before that act may be considered by the jury; (2) consideration of “unadjudicated” criminal acts by the defendant violated his due process or equal protection rights; (3) failure to require a unanimous jury finding on the unadjudicated acts of violence denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial; and (4) the Eighth Amendment requires a unanimity instruction concerning factor (b) evidence. (Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 533-534; Kipp, supra, at p. 1138, and cases cited; Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 402.) Regarding the jury‟s penalty determination process, defendant asserts that some of the terms employed in CALJIC No. 8.88 — “so substantial” and “warrant[]” — together with the instruction‟s alleged failure to expressly inform the jurors that the central determination is whether death is the appropriate punishment, rendered the instruction vague and misleading. He further observes that the instruction failed to specify that if aggravating factors do not outweigh those in mitigation, a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole is mandatory. Finally, he argues, the instruction failed to inform the jury that neither party bore the burden of persuasion. As the People observe, we have repeatedly considered and rejected these and related arguments. (See, e.g., Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 533 [the term “so substantial” is not unconstitutionally vague under the federal Constitution‟s Eighth Amendment]; Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 124; People v. Crew, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 858.) Finally, defendant reprises other oft-rejected claims: that the trial court was obligated to delete assertedly inapplicable statutory factors (see People v. Bramit (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1221, 1248); that the jury must be instructed which factors are aggravating and which are mitigating (People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1151; People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 919); that use of adjectives such as 49 “extreme” violated various constitutional rights (People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 165); and that written findings are required with regard to aggravating factors (Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 533; People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 549). He asserts that these alleged defects, coupled with the absence of intercase proportionality review, amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation. We agree with the People: “One cannot add a group of negative numbers and obtain a positive sum.” E. Asserted cumulative error and violation of international law For similar reasons we reject defendant‟s contention that “cumulative error” requires reversal — there being no error to cumulate. We also reject his repeated assertion that international law bars his sentence. (See ante, fn. 17.)