Opinion ID: 4521869
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Challenges to Death Penalty

Text: Defendant makes a number of challenges to the death penalty, all of which we have considered and rejected in the past. Because he offers no compelling reason to reconsider our longstanding precedent, we decline to do so. We will instead dispose of each claim without extended analysis. “The death penalty is not unconstitutional for failing broadly to ‘adequately narrow the class of murderers eligible for 91 PEOPLE v. FAYED Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. the death penalty.’ ” (People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 149.) Contrary to defendant’s claim, we “ ‘repeatedly have held that consideration of the circumstances of the crime under section 190.3, factor (a) does not result in arbitrary or capricious imposition of the death penalty.’ ” (People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1066.) Nor is the death penalty unconstitutional for not requiring “findings beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance (other than Pen. Code, § 190.3, factor (b) or factor (c) evidence) has been proved, that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate sentence.” (People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1235.) This conclusion, moreover, is not undermined by the high court’s decisions in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, or Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584. (People v. Rangel, at p. 1235.) The trial court is not required to instruct the jury that there is no burden of proof at the penalty phase. (People v. Streeter (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610, 268.) Nor does the trial court’s failure to instruct that there is a “ ‘ “presumption of life” ’ ” violate a defendant’s constitutional rights to due process, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, to a reliable determination of his or her sentence, and to equal protection of the laws under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. (People v. Cage (2015) 62 Cal.4th 256, 293.) “The death penalty is not unconstitutional for failing to require that the jury base any death sentence on written findings.” (People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 488.) “The phrase ‘whether or not’ in section 190.3, factors (d)-(h) and (j) does not unconstitutionally suggest that the absence of a 92 PEOPLE v. FAYED Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. mitigating factor is to be considered as an aggravating circumstance.” (People v. Wall (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1048, 1073.) “ ‘We have consistently held that unanimity with respect to aggravating factors is not required by statute or as a constitutional procedural safeguard.’ ” (Ibid.) “Use in the sentencing factors of such adjectives as ‘extreme’ (§ 190.3, factors (d), (g)) and ‘substantial’ (id., factor (g)) does not act as a barrier to the consideration of mitigating evidence in violation of the federal Constitution.” (People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 614–615.) Nor does the use of unadjudicated offenses under section 190.3, factor (b) in capital proceedings, but not in noncapital matters, violate the equal protection clause or due process principles. (People v. Delgado (2017) 2 Cal.5th 544, 591.) The equal protection clause does not require that the state’s capital sentencing scheme provide the same procedural protections provided to noncapital defendants. (People v. Henriquez (2017) 4 Cal.5th 1, 46.) Nor does the federal Constitution require intercase proportionality review. (Ibid.) “International norms and treaties do not render the death penalty unconstitutional as applied in this state.” (People v. Simon, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 150.) We have consistently found that “there are no constitutional or international law infirmities in the death penalty law . . . .” (People v. Weaver (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1056, 1093.) 93 PEOPLE v. FAYED Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.