Opinion ID: 1801741
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Challenges to California's Death Penalty Statute and Related Instructions

Text: Defendant raises various challenges to California's death penalty statute and the jury instructions thereunder. Our prior decisions have rejected them repeatedly, as follows. The death penalty statute and instructions are not unconstitutional because they fail to assign a burden of proof for finding aggravating and mitigating circumstances, or because they do not require the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating factor exists (except for other unadjudicated violent criminal activity), that aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate penalty. ( People v. Parson, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 370 [and cases cited]; People v. Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 227 [and cases cited].) Contrary to defendant's assertion, nothing in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435, 120 S.Ct. 2348] or Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584 [153 L.Ed.2d 556, 122 S.Ct. 2428] compels otherwise. ( People v. Parson, supra, at p. 370 [and cases cited]; People v. Whisenhunt, supra, at p. 227 [and cases cited].) The death penalty statute and instructions are not constitutionally flawed because they fail to require the state to bear the burden of persuasion regarding the penalty decision. ( People v. Parson, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 371 [and cases cited]; People v. Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 227 [and cases cited].) Nor are they unconstitutional for failing to require juror unanimity on the aggravating factors. ( People v. Whisenhunt, supra, at pp. 227-228 [and cases cited]; People v. Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 373.)