Opinion ID: 2607459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Miscellaneous Challenges to Death Penalty Law and Denial of Modification Motion

Text: Defendant challenges the capital sentencing scheme on various statutory and constitutional grounds. He concedes we have rejected these claims many times before, and raises them solely to preserve review in federal court. We affirm that, contrary to defendant's contentions: 1. The death penalty law in California, including Sacramento County, is not presumptively applied in a racially discriminatory, arbitrary, or disproportionate manner. ( People v. Ashmus, supra, 54 Cal.3d 932, 980.) 2. Evidence of other unadjudicated violent criminal activity is admissible in aggravation at the penalty phase. ( People v. Balderas, supra, 41 Cal.3d 144, 204-205.) 3. Evidence of other unadjudicated violent criminal activity is admissible in aggravation even though prosecution for it would otherwise be time-barred. ( People v. Robertson, supra, 48 Cal.3d 18, 43-44.) 4. The jury need not employ the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in deciding whether aggravating factors (other than violent criminal conduct) are present, whether aggravation outweighs mitigation, and whether death is the appropriate sentence. ( People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d 730, 777-779, 791.) 5. The jury need not make written findings or agree unanimously on the presence of aggravating factors. ( People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 178-180 [158 Cal. Rptr. 281, 599 P.2d 587].) 6. The standard jury instruction does not inherently encourage double-counting under section 190.3, factors (a) (circumstances of the capital crimes) and (b) (criminal activity involving violence). ( People v. Bonin, supra, 46 Cal.3d 659, 703.) 7. The court's consideration of the probation report before ruling on the automatic motion to modify the verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)) is not presumptively prejudicial. ( People v. Livaditis, supra, 2 Cal.4th 759, 787.) Defendant does not seriously contend, nor do we find, any such error affected the court's ruling. The court denied the motion based on its independent assessment of the aggravating and mitigating evidence.