Opinion ID: 2517324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Miscellaneous Constitutional Challenges to the Death Penalty Statute

Text: Defendant presents a number of further constitutional attacks on the death penalty statute that we have rejected. [25] We continue to do so. Thus: The circumstances of the crime factor provided by section 190.3, factor (a) does not foster arbitrary and capricious penalty determinations. ( People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1058; People v. Cook, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1367.) Section 190.3 sufficiently narrows the class of murderers eligible for capital punishment. ( People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1058; People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 358 [60 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 160 P.3d 84].) The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply to findings on the capital sentencing factors (except for other crimes), nor does the preponderance of the evidence standard. The jury's findings need be neither written nor unanimous. ( People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1059; People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 533 [61 Cal.Rptr.3d 526, 161 P.3d 58].) Review for intercase proportionality is not constitutionally required. ( People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1059; People v. Geier, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 618.) Defendant fails to support his assertion that this court has categorically forbidden such review; in the only case to which he refers, we considered the showing of alleged disproportionality and found it insufficient. ( People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907, 947 [269 Cal.Rptr. 269, 790 P.2d 676].) Section 190.3, factor (b) does not violate the federal Constitution by permitting the use of unadjudicated criminal activity as an aggravating factor, nor must such factors be found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous jury. ( People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1059; People v. Bonilla, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 359.) The use of the adjectives extreme and substantial in section 190.3, factors (d) and (g) is not unconstitutional. ( People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1059; People v. Cook, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1366.) A penalty phase jury need not be instructed that section 190.3, factors (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (j) can only mitigate, and not aggravate, the crime. [Citation.] ( People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1059; see also People v. Bonilla, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 360.) The death penalty law does not deny capital defendants equal protection because it provides a different method of determining the sentence than is used in noncapital cases. [Citation.] ( People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1059; see also People v. Bonilla, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 360.)
Defendant contends the cumulative effect of the errors at his trial requires reversal of his death sentence. We have found no prejudicial error at either phase of trial. The defects we have identified, i.e., the omissions from the appellate record, the faulty instruction on the felony-murder special circumstance, and the failure to properly reinstruct the jury at the penalty phase, do not, considered together, warrant reversal.