Opinion ID: 2515784
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refusal to Permit Evidence of the Lack of Punishment for Accomplices

Text: The prosecution moved the trial court to preclude the defense from presenting evidence or argument on the lack of punishment for accomplices  Rojas, Juarez, and Rodriguezin this case. Over defendant's objection, the court granted the motion. Defendant now contends this was error. He acknowledges we have rejected this claim in the past (see, e.g., People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 562-563, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145, 73 P.3d 1137) but urges us to reconsider. He presents no persuasive reason to do so. Defendant claims the federal Constitution requires consideration of an accomplice's punishment, or lack thereof, because the federal death penalty statute lists, as a factor to consider in determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed on a defendant under federal law, [a]nother defendant or defendants, equally culpable in the crime, will not be punished by death. (18 U.S.C. § 3592(a)(4).) The federal statute is inapposite. First, it is limited to evidence of sentences for codefendants. Second, that the federal death penalty law allows for consideration of such a factor does not imply that it is constitutionally required. ( United States v. Sampson (D.Mass.2004) 335 F.Supp.2d 166, 194 [What 18 U.S.C.A. § 3592 allows is substantially broader than what the Supreme Court has declared to be the minimal requirements under the Constitution].) We conclude that the court did not err in granting the prosecution's request to preclude such evidence.