Opinion ID: 1309317
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Other Penalty Issues

Text: (22) Defendant's remaining contentions are meritless. He claims that, in ruling on his automatic application for modification of the penalty, the court failed to give due consideration to evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The record, however, does not substantiate the assertion. The court considered mitigating evidence, including defendant's age, and properly weighed the mitigating and aggravating circumstances before denying the motion for modification. (23) Defendant claims juror Simpson was improperly excluded for cause. Again the record does not support the assertions. The challenged juror had expressed unequivocal opposition to the death penalty. (See People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 767-769 [239 Cal. Rptr. 82, 739 P.2d 1250].) On a similar point, we have rejected defendant's claim that excusing prospective jurors who would automatically vote against the death penalty violates the Sixth Amendment. (See, e.g., id., at pp. 753-754.) (24) We have also rejected defendant's claim that the court should have deleted assertedly inapplicable factors from former CALJIC No. 8.88.1 ( id., at pp. 776-777) and we have recently rejected defendant's argument that due process requires a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances and that death is the appropriate penalty. ( Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 777-779.) (25) Finally, the substance of defendant's claim that the 1977 death penalty law violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it fails to guide the jury's sentencing discretion has been rejected in People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 315-317 [168 Cal. Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149], and People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 172-188 [158 Cal. Rptr. 281, 599 P.2d 587] (plur. opn.).