Opinion ID: 2507466
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Challenges to Death Penalty Scheme

Text: Defendant raises several constitutional challenges to the death penalty statute and related jury instructions. (See U.S. Const., 5th, 6th, 8th & 14th Amends.) We have consistently considered and rejected these claims, and do so again here. Specifically, we conclude that the death penalty scheme is not unconstitutional because it fails to allocate the burden of proofor establish the standard of prooffor finding the existence of an aggravating factor, or because it does not require the jury to find that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate penalty. ( People v. Geier, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 618, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 580, 161 P.3d 104; People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 573, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 108 P.3d 182.) The high court decisions in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403, Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556, and Apprendi v. New Jersey, supra, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435, do not alter our conclusions in this regard. ( People v. Stitely, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 573, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1,108 P.3d 182.) We also conclude that the penalty phase instructions were not defective in failing to assign a burden of persuasion regarding the jury's penalty decision ( People v. Smith (2005) 35 Cal.4th 334, 370-371, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 554, 107 P.3d 229), in failing to require juror unanimity on the aggravating factors ( People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 533, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 526, 161 P.3d 58), or in failing to include an instruction on the presumption of life. ( People v. Geier, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 618, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 580, 161 P.3d 104.)