Opinion ID: 2634388
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Constitutionality of California's Death Penalty Law

Text: Defendant makes a number of constitutional challenges to California's death penalty scheme, all of which we have previously rejected. Contrary to defendant's arguments, the statutory scheme adequately narrows the class of murder for which the death penalty may be imposed [citation], and is not overbroad ... because of the sheer number and scope of special circumstances [that] define a capital murder.... ( People v. Harris, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 365, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 509, 118 P.3d 545.) 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. ( Ibid. ) The statutory scheme is not invalid in failing to require the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating circumstances exist (other than prior criminality), that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances, or that death is the appropriate sentence, or in failing to impose, or require the jury to be instructed on, any burden of proof regarding penalty. ( Ibid. ) The trial court need not instruct that there is a presumption favoring life imprisonment. ( People v. Taylor (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1155, 1178, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 34 P.3d 937.) Nor is the jury constitutionally required to achieve unanimity or make written findings as to aggravating factors. ( Harris, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 366, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 509, 118 P.3d 545.) The failure to require intercase proportionality review does not render the law unconstitutional. [Citations.] ( Ibid. ) Use of the adjectives extreme and substantial in the list of potential mitigating factors does not act as a barrier to consideration of mitigating evidence. ( People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 213, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763.) The trial court is not required to delineate which factors are mitigating or aggravating. [Citation.] ( Id. at p. 212, 59 Cal. Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763.) The death penalty law does not violate a capital defendant's constitutional right to equal protection because the sentencing procedures for capital defendants are different from those for noncapital defendants. [Citation.] ( Leonard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1430, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 368, 157 P.3d 973.) Finally, California's use of the death penalty, which defendant alleges to be a `regular form of punishment,' does not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution by violating what defendant describes as `international norms of humanity and decency,' nor does it violate principles of international law. [Citation.] ( Ibid. ) Defendant offers no persuasive reason for reconsidering any of these issues.