Opinion ID: 2600470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Absence of Mitigating Evidence

Text: Defendant acknowledges that this court repeatedly has rejected the contention that a defendant's decision not to present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase, in itself, renders the determination of penalty unreliable under the federal and California Constitutions. ( People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal.4th 550, 570, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 816, 967 P.2d 29, and cases cited therein.) He argues nonetheless that [e]volving due process standards and requirements of reliability of the death sentencing procedure have undermined the Court's analysis in those cases. We have repeatedly stressed . . . that a defense counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase does not make the proceeding unreliable in constitutional terms so long as (1) the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof at both phases of trial consistently with the rules of evidence and a constitutionally sound death penalty scheme; (2) the death verdict was rendered in accordance with proper instructions and procedures; and (3) the penalty jury considered the relevant mitigating evidence, if any, that the defendant has chosen to introduce. [Citations.] ( People v. Lewis, supra, 25 Cal.4th 610, 676, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392; People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 737, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 485, 115 P.3d 1145.) Defendant has presented no persuasive reason to reconsider our previous holdings.