Opinion ID: 1201769
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Argument about burden of proof

Text: Defense counsel gave the jury this description of the process of determining penalty: The law in the state of California allows for a death penalty if 12 people like you feel that it is appropriate and fix it as the ultimate penalty to be handed out in any given sentence or case. (Italics added.) Later, defense counsel added: [T]he standard of proof now is less than it was before, so if you simply want to balance the ledger you could flip a coin. It would be inappropriate, but you could determine it that way, and I don't mean by flipping a coin, but you can in your own mind say, `Well, we have two choices, which shall it be.' (30a) Defendant contends that by these words defense counsel mischaracterized and trivialized the burden of proof and the penalty determination process, and that there can be no justification for these statements. We disagree. Preliminarily, we note that defense counsel's argument was followed by the court's instructions to the jury, and that these instructions resolved any ambiguities or misimpressions. On the subject of penalty determination, the court instructed in these words: After having heard all the evidence and after having heard and considered the arguments of counsel, you shall consider, take into account and be guided by the applicable factors of aggravating and mitigating circumstances upon which you have been instructed. [ถ] The weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances does not mean a mere mechanical counting of factors on each side of an imaginary scale, or the arbitrary assignment of weights to any of them. You are free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various factors you are permitted to consider. [ถ] In weighing the various circumstances, you simply determine under the relevant evidence which penalty is justified and appropriate by considering the totality of the aggravating circumstances with the totality of the mitigating circumstances. [ถ] To return a judgment of death, each of you must be persuaded that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that they warrant death instead of life without parole. The first challenged remark by defense counsel is a substantially correct description of the jury's role at the penalty phase of a capital case. The penalty jury's role is to determine, as defense counsel stated, which of the two alternative penalties โ death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole โ is appropriate. Because the determination of appropriateness is a reasoned moral decision, rather than an emotional response, the word feel is somewhat inapt. But any confusion in this regard was dispelled by the court's instructions quoted above. The second challenged remark by defense counsel is also substantially correct. (31) To return a death verdict the jury must be persuaded that aggravation so outweighs mitigation that such a verdict is appropriate, but neither [party] has the burden of proof on that issue. ( People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 890 [277 Cal. Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906]; People v. Robertson (1989) 48 Cal.3d 18, 58-59 [255 Cal. Rptr. 631, 767 P.2d 1109]), and the jury need not be persuaded of its sentencing decision beyond a reasonable doubt ( People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 553 [262 Cal. Rptr. 1, 778 P.2d 129]). (30b) The point of counsel's remark was merely that the two penalty options were equally available, that there was no thumb โ in the form of a presumption, burden of proof, or other legal rule โ on either side of the scale, and that the jurors should therefore enter the penalty deliberations with their minds open to both potential verdicts.