Opinion ID: 2632884
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Overbreadth and Vagueness of Section 190.3, Subdivision (a)

Text: Defendant next argues that section 190.3, subdivision (a), which allows the jury to consider the circumstances of the crime as a possible aggravating factor, is so broad and ill-defined that it encourages the jurors to impose the death penalty arbitrarily and capriciously. Defendant gives examples from other California cases showing prosecutors have relied on a wide range of facts in arguing that the circumstances of the crime warrant being treated as an aggravating factor. But the case law rejects the vagueness and overbreadth arguments. (See Tuilaepa v. California (1994) 512 U.S. 967, 975-976, 114 S.Ct. 2630, 129 L.Ed.2d 750; People v. Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 499, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 107 P.3d 790; People v. Carpenter, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1064, 90 Cal. Rptr.2d 607, 988 P.2d 531.) As stated in Tuilaepa, The circumstance of the crime are a traditional subject for consideration by the sentencer, and an instruction to consider the circumstances is neither vague nor otherwise improper under our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. (512 U.S. at p. 976,114 S.Ct. 2630.)