Opinion ID: 2515770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: California Death Eligibility Law

Text: Defendant contends that California's death penalty law violates the state and federal Constitutions because it fails to adequately narrow the class of death-eligible defendants. We have repeatedly rejected this contention (e.g., People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 191-192, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150; People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 740, 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 871, 3 P.3d 248, and cases cited) and defendant does not persuade us to reconsider our previous rulings on this issue. Defendant argues in particular that California's death penalty law fails to appropriately narrow the death-eligible class because it gives prosecutors unreviewable discretion in charging special circumstances and electing to seek the death penalty. For reasons we have previously explained, we disagree. ( People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 905, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15; People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 421, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708; People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 189-190, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980; People v. Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 152, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887; People v. Kirkpatrick, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1024, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 818, 874 P.2d 248.)