Opinion ID: 2581763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutionality of California Death Penalty Law

Text: Defendant contends that the California death penalty is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 17 of the California Constitution. Specifically, he claims that the death penalty is inherently cruel and unusual punishment; that it is inherently unconstitutional because it cannot be imposed fairly; that California's laws defining first degree murder, the class of death-eligible defendants, and the aggravating circumstances that the jury may consider are unconstitutionally broad; and, finally, that the California capital sentencing process suffers from a wide variety of procedural and substantive defects that individually and collectively violate state and federal due process, cruel and unusual punishment provisions, and Eighth Amendment reliability requirements, fail to give the jury proper guidance, and result in a vague, arbitrary, and capricious selection of death as the appropriate sentence. As defendant acknowledges, we have previously rejected the identical contentions. (See People v. Bradford, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 1057-1059, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 929 P.2d 544; People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 419-421, 63 Cal. Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708; People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1194-1195, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1; People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 152-160, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) We decline to revisit the points.