Opinion ID: 2575997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Sufficiently Narrow Eligibility for Death Penalty

Text: Defendant contends California's death penalty law violates the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it does not meaningfully distinguish the cases in which the death penalty is imposed from the cases in which it is not. He asserts that the death penalty law contains so many special circumstances making a defendant eligible for the death penalty that it no longer performs the constitutionally required narrowing function. We have in the past repeatedly rejected this challenge. (E.g., People v. Crew, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 859-860, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 733, 74 P.3d 820; People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 566, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 802, 58 P.3d 931.) We also reject defendant's assertion that the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution prohibits the death penalty as a form of punishment because the death penalty is not recognized in European countries and therefore is cruel and unusual. Whether a form of punishment is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment is determined based on an evaluation of evolving standards of decency. ( Trop v. Dulles (1958) 356 U.S. 86, 100-101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630.) Although the practices and norms of other nations can be relevant in determining whether a punishment is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment, they are not controlling. ( Roper v. Simmons (2005) ___ U.S. ___, ___, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 1200, 161 L.Ed.2d 1.) What matters are the standards of decency of the American people. As our high court has stated, the `clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by' our nation's legislatures. ( Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 U.S. 304, 312, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335.) Defendant further contends that our death penalty law violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution because it allows the imposition of the death penalty based on the felony-murder rule, which does not require intent to kill, while a premeditated and deliberate intentional murder does not necessarily qualify the murderer for the death penalty. We have previously rejected this contention. ( People v. Taylor (1990) 52 Cal.3d 719, 747-748, 276 Cal.Rptr. 391, 801 P.2d 1142; People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1147, 240 Cal.Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306.)