Opinion ID: 2636938
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to require unanimous reasonable-doubt finding.

Text: Defendant asserts the trial court erred by failing to instruct that jurors could not consider the unadjudicated Mackey murder in aggravation of penalty unless they unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed it. The error, he contends, violated his rights to due process, equal protection, fair trial, trial by jury, and a reliable penalty determination under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. [15] We have consistently applied the rule that while an individual juror may consider violent other crimes in aggravation only if he or she deems them established beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury need not unanimously find other crimes true beyond a reasonable doubt before individual jurors may consider them. Unanimity is required only as to the appropriate penalty. (E.g., Hart, supra, 20 Cal.4th 546, 649, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683; People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 823, 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 543, 897 P.2d 481; Livaditis, supra, 2 Cal.4th 759, 785, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 831 P.2d 297; People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 974, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571; Bacigalupo, supra, 1 Cal.4th 103, 135, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 335, 820 P.2d 559; Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d 57, 99, 241 Cal. Rptr. 594, 744 P.2d 1127; Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d 739, 773-774, 239 Cal.Rptr. 82, 739 P.2d 1250; Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d 730, 777-779, 230 Cal.Rptr. 667, 726 P.2d 113.) Defendant presents no compelling reason to reconsider this long line of authority.