Opinion ID: 4273082
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Multiple Murder Special Circumstance

Text: The only special circumstance alleged and found true in this case was that set forth in section 190.2, subdivision (a)(3) — the so-called “multiple murder” special circumstance. Reed argues that the criterion violates the Eighth Amendment of the federal Constitution by failing to “genuinely narrow” the category of defendants eligible for the death penalty. We have consistently rejected this argument, however, and see no reason to rethink those decisions. (See, e.g., People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 934 [citing past cases].) 36 6. Other Challenges to California’s Death Penalty Law Reed lodges several other challenges to the constitutionality of California’s capital sentencing scheme, all of which he concedes we have previously rejected. We are not persuaded to reconsider our precedent. Specifically, we reaffirm that the state’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution by failing to sufficiently narrow the class of offenders eligible for the death penalty (People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 488); permitting arbitrary and capricious sentencing (id. at p. 489); allowing for a death sentence without the jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of aggravating factors, that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating ones, or that death is the appropriate penalty (ibid.); not requiring written jury findings regarding aggravating factors (id. at p. 490); forgoing inter-case proportionality review (ibid.); allowing prosecutors to use unadjudicated criminal activity as a factor in aggravation (id. at p. 489); employing restrictive adjectives such as “extreme” or “substantial” to describe factors in mitigation (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 968); not identifying which factors are aggravating and which are mitigating (ibid.); or providing different procedural safeguards to capital and non-capital defendants (Winbush, 2 Cal.5th at p. 490). Last, we reaffirm that the state’s use of the death penalty does not violate international norms or evolving standards of decency in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Ibid.) 7. Reliability of California’s Criminal Justice System Reed argues that the state’s criminal justice system is too unreliable to allow for the imposition of the death penalty. To the extent that Reed challenges the strength of the eyewitness identifications of him, we have already rejected the claim. (See Sections II.B.1-2, supra.) To the extent he argues that the state’s criminal justice system allows for an unconstitutionally high chance of a wrongful 37 conviction, we recently discussed that claim at some length and rejected it. (See People v. Williams (2013) 58 Cal.4th 197, 296.) We see no reason to reconsider. 8. Method of Execution Reed argues that California’s use of lethal injection in the administration of the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment. But a “challenge to the method of a future execution is not cognizable on appeal, because such a claim does not impugn the validity of the judgment.” (People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 270.) 9. Cumulative Error Reed argues that the cumulative effect of the errors at his trial requires reversal. Because we have found but one error — which was harmless — there is no prejudice to cumulate. (See Section II.B.4, supra.) We therefore reject the claim. 38