Opinion ID: 2594480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: Proof of aggravating factors

Text: Defendant argues the trial court should have instructed the jury that the prosecution needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) the existence of any aggravating factors, (2) that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, and (3) that death was the appropriate penalty. Defendant also claims that the failure to state any standard of proof with respect to aggravating factors constituted an independent constitutional error. Defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney's failure to request instructions along these lines. We have repeatedly rejected these contentions and do so again here. (See, e.g., People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1216, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130, and cases cited therein.) The high court's decision in Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584 [122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556] does not require us to reach a different conclusion, because Ring does not apply to California's penalty phase proceedings. ( People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 272, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 66 P.3d 1123 ( Prieto) . )