Opinion ID: 2590700
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Aggravating Circumstances โ Requirement of Jury Unanimity or a Substantial Majority of Jurors

Text: Defendant claims the trial court should have instructed the jury to unanimously agree that defendant solicited the murder of Berrie before it could consider it in aggravation under section 190.3. Relying on recent high court decisions, defendant claims the court's failure to instruct on unanimity violated his rights under the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under parallel provisions of the California Constitution. We disagree. Juries are not constitutionally required to agree unanimously on aggravating factors. ( People v. Hillhouse, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 511, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 45, 40 P.3d 754.) Contrary to defendant's assertion, Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435, and Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556, do not dictate otherwise. ( People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 402, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 93 P.3d 244; People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 262-263, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 66 P.3d 1123 [ Apprendi and Ring do not apply to the penalty phase in a capital case].)