Opinion ID: 1801790
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Challenges to the Death Penalty Law and Penalty Phase Instructions

Text: Defendant challenges California's death penalty law and the standard penalty phase instructions for reasons previously rejected by this court in other cases. He raises no basis for reconsideration of these rulings. Specifically, the death penalty law adequately narrows the class of death-eligible defendants. ( People v. Combs (2004) 34 Cal.4th 821, 868 [22 Cal.Rptr.3d 61, 101 P.3d 1007].) `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. Kelly, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 800.) Recent United States Supreme Court decisions do not undermine these conclusions. ( Ibid. ; People v. Morgan, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 626-627; People v. Lewis and Oliver, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 1068.) Nor do our jury instructions require jury unanimity on mitigating factors or mislead a jury into believing that such unanimity is required. ( People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 860 [3 Cal.Rptr.3d 733, 74 P.3d 820].) The use of such words in the sentencing factors statute as extreme (§ 190.3, factors (d), (g)), reasonably believed (§ 190.3, factor (f)), and impaired (§ 190.3, factor (h)) is constitutional. ( People v. Kelly, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 801; People v. Crew, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 860.) Section 190.3, factor (a) is not unconstitutionally overbroad, arbitrary, capricious, or vague. ( People v. Kelly, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 800; People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1050-1053 [95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044].) The so substantial standard for comparing mitigating and aggravating circumstances in CALJIC No. 8.88 is not unconstitutionally vague. ( People v. Morgan, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 625.) CALJIC No. 8.88 is not constitutionally defective for not instructing the jury to return a verdict of life imprisonment if aggravating factors do not outweigh mitigating ones. ( People v. Morgan, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 625.) Intercase proportionality review is not constitutionally required. ( People v. Combs, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 868; People v. Griffin, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 596.) 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. Kelly, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 801.) Finally, we reject defendant's claim that a death sentence violates provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty which the United States ratified in 1992, and violates international norms of human decency reflected in the laws and practices of most civilized nations. ( People v. Morgan, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 627-628.) [A] sentence of death that complies with state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements does not violate international law. ( People v. Kelly, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 801.)