Opinion ID: 844288
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenge to Prosecutor's Discretion Based on Bush v. Gore

Text: Defendant argues that the death penalty in California violates the California Constitution and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because it is imposed arbitrarily and capriciously depending on the county in which the case is prosecuted. We have repeatedly rejected substantially similar claims, concluding over 20 years ago that prosecutorial discretion to select those eligible cases in which the death penalty will actually be sought does not ... offend principles of equal protection, due process, or cruel and/or unusual punishment. ( People v. Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 505 [250 Cal.Rptr. 550, 758 P.2d 1081]; see also People v. Demetrulias (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1, 43 [45 Cal.Rptr.3d 407, 137 P.3d 229].) Defendant, however, urges this court to reexamine our decisions in prior cases in light of the United States Supreme Court's voting rights decision in Bush v. Gore (2000) 531 U.S. 98 [148 L.Ed.2d 388, 121 S.Ct. 525], which, he asserts, requires uniformity among California's 58 counties for prosecutorial standards for seeking the death penalty. But as the high court explained, its consideration of the equal protection challenge to Florida's voting recount process was limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities. ( Id. at p. 109, italics added.) That case, therefore, does not warrant our revisiting our prior holdings on the instant issue. ( People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 629, fn. 19 [88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535].)