Opinion ID: 2598792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Constitutionality of Death Penalty Statute and Procedures

Text: Defendant asserts a variety of supposed flaws in California's death penalty statutes and procedures, including failing to designate the aggravating and mitigating factors, limiting the jury's consideration of defendant's mental disorders or duress exerted on him, failing to delete inapplicable sentencing factors, failing adequately to define mitigation, failing to advise the jury of its ability to vote for life imprisonment without parole despite the weight of aggravating circumstances, failing to require written findings, allowing multiple use and counting of aggravating evidence, failing to require a finding that death is appropriate beyond a reasonable doubt, and failing to require unanimity as to the truth of aggravating factors. We have recently and repeatedly rejected these contentions. (See, e.g., People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 404-06, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432; People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 991-993, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 29 P.3d 103; People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 417-418, 421, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708; People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1057-1059, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 929 P.2d 544.) We see no reason to reexamine those cases. Defendant cites Apprendi v. New Jersey, supra, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435, and Ring v. Arizona, supra, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556, as justifying reconsideration of the foregoing decisions. These cases, however, have no application to the penalty phase procedures of this state. ( People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 262-264, 271-272, 275, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 66 P.3d 1123; see People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271, 65 P.3d 749; People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 642,134 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 68 P.3d 302, 343.)