Opinion ID: 1277687
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Illegal Method of Execution

Text: At the time defendant was sentenced to death, the method of execution in this state was by lethal gas. Subsequently, this method of execution was found to be cruel and unusual. ( Fierro v. Gomez (N.D.Cal.1994) 865 F.Supp. 1387, affd. by Fierro v. Gomez (9th Cir.1996) 77 F.3d 301, 309.) The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Fierro, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of... [s]ection 3604. ( Gomez v. Fierro (1996) 519 U.S. 918,117 S.Ct. 285,136 L.Ed.2d 204.) Section 3604, subdivision (b), as amended in 1996, permits an election by persons sentenced to death to have punishment imposed by either lethal gas or lethal injection. As we have noted, the constitutionality of the method of execution bears solely on the legality of the execution of the sentence and not on the validity of the sentence itself. ( People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1110, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40, fn. omitted.) Defendant argues nonetheless that the supposed unconstitutionality of the execution by lethal gas directly affected his penalty verdict. As he states: Since retribution rather than deterrence appears to be the prevailing justification for modern capital punishment systems, it is unsurprising that a juror's assessment of the harshness of punishment becomes one of the sentencing factors.... Thus, some jurors in defendant's trial may have concluded that painful death by gas was a more appropriate punishment than life in prison. But the same jurors could have easily concluded that life in prison was harsher and more appropriate [than] a medically administered injection similar to those contemplated by proponents of state assisted suicide laws.... Defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the method of execution envisioned by defendant's sentencing jury has been found unconstitutional. Of course, the argument could be made that it is at least as likely that the adoption of lethal injection as a method of execution has made juries more, rather than less, willing to select a death sentence. In any case, when reviewing a jury verdict, [w]e presume that jurors comprehend and accept the court's directions. ( People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 689, fn. 17, 286 Cal.Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84.) Defendant's speculation about the jury's decisionmaking process does not serve to dispel that presumption in the present case. We therefore presume that the method of execution did not play a role in the jury's penalty phase deliberations.