Opinion ID: 2519742
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutionality of California death penalty statute

Text: Defendant urges that California's death penalty law violates the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution because (1) section 190.3, factors (a) and (b) are unconstitutionally vague, (2) there is no guidance regarding which circumstances are aggravating and which are mitigating, (3) irrelevant factors are not deleted, leading jurors to believe that the absence of mitigating factors is itself aggravating, (4) the jury is not required to make findings on which factors it is relying upon to impose death, (5) the jury is not required to unanimously agree on applicable aggravating factors, and (6) there is no requirement that death be found appropriate beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant acknowledges we have in past cases rejected each of these challenges to this state's death penalty statute. We do so again here, finding no reason to reconsider those prior decisions. Defendant's claim that the death penalty law is unconstitutional because section 190.3, factors (a) and (b) are unconstitutionally vague has been repeatedly rejected by this court. (See, e.g., People v. Jackson, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1246, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 920 P.2d 1254; People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 964, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 897 P.2d 574; see also Tuilaepa v. California (1994) 512 U.S. 967, 114 S.Ct. 2630, 129 L.Ed.2d 750.) His claim that the death penalty law is unconstitutional because there is no guidance regarding which circumstances are aggravating and which are mitigating has likewise been rejected by this court. (See, e.g., People v. Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 806, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485; People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 919, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678, 830 P.2d 712.) His claim that the death penalty law is unconstitutional because irrelevant factors are not deleted, leading jurors to believe that the absence of mitigating factors is itself aggravating, has repeatedly been rejected. (See, e.g., People v. Raley, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 919, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678, 830 P.2d 712; People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 104-105, 241 Cal.Rptr. 594, 744 P.2d 1127.) Defendant's remaining claims, that the death penalty law is unconstitutional because the jury is not required to make findings on which factors it is relying upon to impose death, to unanimously agree on applicable aggravating factors, or to find death appropriate beyond a reasonable doubt, have likewise each been considered and rejected by this court in previous cases. (See, e.g., People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 404-06, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432; People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 991-993, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 29 P.3d 103.)