Opinion ID: 2575997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Challenges to the Penalty Phase of Trial

Text: Defendant presents a number of challenges to the penalty phase of the trial. As he acknowledges, this court has in prior decisions rejected these challenges. We briefly discuss these holdings below. A trial court is not required on its own motion to instruct the jury not to consider the same facts as circumstances of the offense and as special circumstances. ( People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 68, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 481, 892 P.2d 1224.) Allowing the jury to consider the circumstances of the crime (ง 190.3, factor (a)) does not lead to the imposition of the death penalty in an arbitrary or capricious manner. ( People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 401, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 93 P.3d 244.) The trial court is not required to delete any inapplicable factors from the list of statutory factors presented to the jury. ( People v. Jones (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1084, 1128-1129, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 70 P.3d 359.) Sentencing factors do not have to be characterized by the trial court as aggravating or mitigating. ( People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 402, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 93 P.3d 244.) The use of adjectives in the sentencing statute and instruction such as extreme and substantial do not render either unconstitutional. ( Ibid. ) The federal Constitution does not require juries to make written findings or achieve unanimity as to aggravating circumstances. ( People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 402, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 93 P.3d 244.) California's death penalty law is not unconstitutional for not imposing a burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that death is the appropriate penalty. ( People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 401, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 93 P.3d 244.) The federal Constitution does not require intercase proportionality review. ( People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 402, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 93 P.3d 244.) The federal Constitution does not compel a trial court to instruct the jury that a sentence of life without possibility of parole actually means life without possibility of parole ( People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th 119, 189-190, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 386, 931 P.2d 960), or to tell the jury there is a presumption that life without possibility of parole is the appropriate sentence ( People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 190, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980).