Opinion ID: 844271
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Challenges to California's Death Penalty Law and Instructions

Text: Defendant reiterates a number of challenges to California's death penalty law and the standard jury instructions that he recognizes we have repeatedly rejected. (See People v. Schmeck (2005) 37 Cal.4th 240, 303-304 [33 Cal.Rptr.3d 397, 118 P.3d 451].) None of the claims are meritorious, and we see no reason to reconsider our previous decisions. Penal Code section 190.3 is not impermissibly broad. ( People v. Schmeck, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 304.) Factor (a) of that section, allowing the jury to consider the circumstances of the crime, has not been applied impermissibly broadly. ( People v. Schmeck, supra, at p. 304.) Except regarding evidence of other crimes, the jury need not find aggravating factors true beyond a reasonable doubt, and no instruction on burden of proof is required. ( People v. Mendoza (2007) 42 Cal.4th 686, 707 [68 Cal.Rptr.3d 274, 171 P.3d 2].) Other than the actual verdict, the jury need not make unanimous findings. ( Ibid. ) The instructions' use of the phrase so substantial is not impermissibly vague or ambiguous. ( Ibid. ) The instructions permissibly refer to whether the death penalty is warranted rather than appropriate. ( Ibid. ) The instructions do not impermissibly fail to inform the jurors that a life sentence is mandatory if mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors. ( Id. at pp. 707-708.) The instructions do not impermissibly fail to inform the jurors that even if they determined that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, they could still return a life sentence. ( People v. Morgan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 593, 625-626 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 753, 170 P.3d 129].) The instructions do not impermissibly fail to inform the jurors regarding the standard of proof and lack of need for unanimity as to mitigating circumstances. ( People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 897 [48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 141 P.3d 135].) The court need not instruct on a presumption of life. ( People v. Morgan, supra, at p. 627.) The jury need not make written findings. ( Ibid. ) The use of restrictive adjectives extreme and substantial in defining some of the statutory mitigating factors is permissible. ( People v. Schmeck, supra, at p. 305.) The court need not delete inapplicable sentencing factors. ( People v. Mendoza, supra, at p. 708.) The court need not instruct the jurors that statutory mitigating factors are relevant solely in mitigation. ( Ibid. ) Intercase proportionality review is not required. ( Id. at p. 706.) The California death penalty scheme does not violate equal protection by treating capital and noncapital defendants differently. ( People v. Morgan, supra, at p. 627.) The use of the death penalty does not violate international law. ( People v. Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 539.)