Opinion ID: 1277687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure of California Death Penalty Statute to Narrow Class of Death Eligible Murders

Text: As we have stated: As construed by the United States Supreme Court, the Eighth Amendment requires that a death penalty law `rationally distinguish between those individuals for whom death is an appropriate sanction and those for whom it is not' ( Spaziano v. Florida (1984) 468 U.S. 447, 460 [104 S.Ct. 3154, 82 L.Ed.2d 340]), and establish `rational criteria that narrow the decisionmaker's judgment as to whether the circumstances of a particular defendant's case meet the threshold.' ( McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) 481 U.S. 279, 305 [107 S.Ct. 1756, 95 L.Ed.2d 262].) ( People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 697, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213.) Defendant contends that the California death penalty statute, because of the inclusiveness of the special circumstances categories, makes virtually all murderers eligible for the death penalty and therefore fails to measure up to the constitutional standard articulated above. We have repeatedly rejected this claim (see People v. Holt, supra, 15 Cal.4th 619% 698, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213, and cases cited therein) and continue to do so.