Opinion ID: 2640086
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Effect of Joinder on Sentencing

Text: Near the start of the guilt phase defendant moved for a mistrial and, alternatively, for severance based on a newspaper article published the same day concerning a Texas capital case. The article suggested that female murderers were less likely to be executed for capital crimes than their male counterparts. Defendant, who presented no evidence that any juror read the article, insisted that a joint penalty trial would unduly prejudice him because the jury was likely to show deference to codefendant Lee simply because she was a woman. The trial court denied the motion. It noted that the motion could be renewed later in the event defendants were convicted and faced a joint penalty trialan option defendant never exercised. On appeal, defendant claims that a joint penalty trial is inherently skewed against male defendants and in favor of female codefendants due to misplaced chivalry by lay jurors. The court's failure to grant severance on this ground allegedly violated various federal and state constitutional rights. Defendant emphasizes Eighth Amendment requirements favoring individualized sentencing determinations (see Lockett v. Ohio (1978) 438 U.S. 586, 605 [57 L.Ed.2d 973, 98 S.Ct. 2954] ( Lockett ) (plur. opn. of Burger, C. J.)), and due process prohibitions against joint trials that are grossly unfair. (See Lewis and Oliver, supra, 39 Cal.4th 970, 998.) No error occurred. Defendant offers only generalized assumptions about cultural stereotypes and gender biases in criminal cases. Nothing suggests the jury failed to properly perform its sentencing function in reaching different outcomes for defendant (a death verdict) and Lee (a hung jury leading to LWOP). Indeed, there were bases in the evidence for this disparity. Defendant was the leader in the killings, and codefendant Lee was the determined follower. The prosecutor noted that they were equally responsible for the slayings, but that the penalty determination was separate as to each defendant. Moreover, in advising the jury how to weigh and consider the factors in aggravation and mitigation, the instructions stated, among other things, that the penalty determination as to each defendant must be based solely on the evidence applicable to that defendant, uninfluenced by what penalty has been or may be determined as justified and appropriate as to the other defendant. (CALJIC No. 8.84.) Jurors were also told that penalty must be decide[d] separately as to each defendant. (CALJIC No. 17.00.) In light of the foregoing, the jury was adequately apprised of the individualized nature of the sentencing determination. No evidence of gender bias or improper comparisons between defendants appears. The claim of error fails.