existence of aggravating factors in California

2026Nor is the scheme deficient because it does not require findings be made beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors (other than § 190.3, factor (b) or (c) evidence), that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate penalty ([Thomas, supra,] 14 Cal.5th [at p.] 408; Mataele, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 435).

2026Nor is the scheme deficient because it does not require findings be made beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors (other than § 190.3, factor (b) or (c) evidence), that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate penalty ([Thomas, supra,] 14 Cal.5th [at p.] 408; Mataele, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 435).

2026“Because the jury’s penalty choice is a normative decision, not a factual one (People v. Beck and Cruz (2019) 8 Cal.5th 548, 670 ), California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Camacho (2022) 14 Cal.5th 77, 150 (Camacho)) or unanimous findings as to the existence of aggravating factors, prior convictions, or unadjudicated criminal activity (People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169 , 1235 (Tran); People v. McDaniel (2021) 12 Cal.5th 97 , 142–145, 156 (McDaniel)).

2024Because the jury’s penalty choice is a normative decision, not a factual one (People v. Beck and Cruz (2019) 8 Cal.5th 548, 670 ), California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Camacho (2022) 14 Cal.5th 77, 150 (Camacho)) or unanimous findings as to the existence of aggravating factors, 118 PEOPLE v. NADEY Opinion of the Court by Corrigan, J. prior convictions, or unadjudicated criminal activity (People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169 , 1235 (Tran); People v. McDaniel (2021) 12 Cal.5th 97 , 142–145, 156 (McDaniel))

2021“Permitting the jury to consider prior unadjudicated criminal conduct as a factor in aggravation under [section 190.3,] factor (b), and imposing no requirement that the jury unanimously find the defendant guilty of the unadjudicated crimes does not violate a defendant’s right to due process or his Sixth Amendment jury trial right.” (Johnson, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 656 , citing People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 , People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1059 .) The trial court’s instruction informing the jurors that they might be persuaded that the aggravating circumstances are “so

2012Procedural safeguards “The jury need not make written findings unanimously agreeing on the existence of aggravating factors and concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating factors exist, that they outweigh the factors in mitigation, and that death is the appropriate penalty.” (People v. Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1007.) Nor is there a constitutional requirement that the jury be instructed on any burden of persuasion with regard to the penalty determination.

2026“Because the jury’s penalty choice is a normative decision, not a factual one (People v. Beck and Cruz (2019) 8 Cal.5th 548, 670 ), California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Camacho (2022) 14 Cal.5th 77, 150 (Camacho)) or unanimous findings as to the existence of aggravating factors, prior convictions, or unadjudicated criminal activity (People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169 , 1235 (Tran); People v. McDaniel (2021) 12 Cal.5th 97 , 142–145, 156 (McDaniel)).

2025(Poore, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 299–300; Taylor, supra, 48 Cal.4th at pp. 602– 603.) “As we have often explained, the jury’s penalty choice is a normative decision, not a factual one.” (Poore, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 309.) Accordingly, the death penalty scheme in California is not unconstitutional for failing to require written findings (Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 417); unanimous findings as to the existence of aggravating factors or unadjudicated criminal activity (Camacho, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 149); or findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors (

2021(People v. Lynch (2010) 50 Cal.4th 693, 766 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 63 , 237 P.3d 416 ].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the right to a jury trial under the federal Constitution (see Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 79 PEOPLE v. RAMIREZ Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C.

2021(People v. Lynch (2010) 50 Cal.4th 693, 766 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 63 , 237 P.3d 416 ].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the right to a jury trial under the federal Constitution (see Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 79 PEOPLE v. RAMIREZ Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C.

2020Cal.4th at p. 255.) The death penalty scheme is not unconstitutional for failing to require written findings (Winbush, at p. 490), unanimous findings (People v. Wall (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1048, 1072 (Wall)), or findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors other than section 190.3, factors (b) and (c), that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate penalty.

2020Cal.4th at p. 255.) The death penalty scheme is not unconstitutional for failing to require written findings (Winbush, at p. 490), unanimous findings (People v. Wall (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1048, 1072 (Wall)), or findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors other than section 190.3, factors (b) and (c), that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate penalty.

2010(See People v. Leonard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1429; accord, People v. Curl, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 362.) “ ‘The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require that a jury unanimously find the existence of aggravating factors or that it make written findings regarding aggravating factors.’ [Citations.] ‘[N]either the cruel and *509 unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment, nor the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating circumstances exist or that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances o

2007(Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 893; Blair, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 753.) The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require that a jury unanimously find the existence of aggravating factors or that it make written findings regarding aggravating factors.

2025This has not resulted in the wanton imposition of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by permitting prosecutors to argue that the various features of the murder, even features that are the converse of those in other cases, are aggravating factors.’ ” (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 409, quoting Schultz, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 683.) “California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393 , 455 [ 255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 , 453 P.3d 89 ] (Rhoades));

2025This has not resulted in the wanton imposition of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by permitting prosecutors to argue that the various features of the murder, even features that are the converse of those in other cases, are aggravating factors.’ ” (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 409, quoting Schultz, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 683.) “California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393 , 455 [ 255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 , 453 P.3d 89 ] (Rhoades));

2025This has not resulted in the wanton imposition of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by permitting prosecutors to argue that the various features of the murder, even features that are the converse of those in other cases, are aggravating factors.’ ” (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 409, quoting Schultz, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 683.) “California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393 , 455 [ 255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 , 453 P.3d 89 ] (Rhoades));

2025This has not resulted in the wanton imposition of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by permitting prosecutors to argue that the various features of the murder, even features that are the converse of those in other cases, are aggravating factors.’ ” (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 409, quoting Schultz, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 683.) “California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393 , 455 [ 255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 , 453 P.3d 89 ] (Rhoades));

2019(See People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1 , 106, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 332 P.3d 1187 ; People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1015 , 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 891 , 94 P.3d 1089 ; People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686 , 753, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 485 , 115 P.3d 1145 .) The federal Constitution does not require the court to instruct the jury that the prosecution has the burden of persuasion regarding the existence of aggravating factors, nor is the court required to instruct the jury that there is no applicable burden of proof. ( People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856 , 916, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 , 365 P.3d 297 ; **

2019(See People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1 , 106, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 332 P.3d 1187 ; People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1015 , 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 891 , 94 P.3d 1089 ; People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686 , 753, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 485 , 115 P.3d 1145 .) The federal Constitution does not require the court to instruct the jury that the prosecution has the burden of persuasion regarding the existence of aggravating factors, nor is the court required to instruct the jury that there is no applicable burden of proof. ( People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856 , 916, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 , 365 P.3d 297 ; **

2025This has not resulted in the wanton imposition of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by permitting prosecutors to argue that the various features of the murder, even features that are the converse of those in other cases, are aggravating factors.’ ” (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 409, quoting Schultz, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 683.) “California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393 , 455 [ 255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 , 453 P.3d 89 ] (Rhoades));

2025This has not resulted in the wanton imposition of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by permitting prosecutors to argue that the various features of the murder, even features that are the converse of those in other cases, are aggravating factors.’ ” (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 409, quoting Schultz, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 683.) “California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393 , 455 [ 255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 , 453 P.3d 89 ] (Rhoades));

2026We have consistently rejected such challenges, individually and cumulatively (People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 211 (Stevens)), and we decline to reconsider our prior precedents regarding the following holdings: “ ‘The death penalty scheme is not unconstitutional for failing to require . . . findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors other than section 190.3, 195 PEOPLE v. BERTSCH and HRONIS Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C.

2014(People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 211 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196 , 158 P.3d 763 ].) The federal Constitution does not require the jury to achieve unanimity as the aggravating circumstances or that it be given a burden of proof or standard of proof instructions for finding the existence of aggravating factors, *333 finding that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, or finding that death is the appropriate penalty.

2022(Beck and Cruz, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 670.) For this reason, California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Molano (2019) 7 Cal.5th 620, 678 (Molano)); unanimous findings as to the existence of 57 PEOPLE v. POORE Opinion of the Court by Corrigan, J. aggravating factors or unadjudicated criminal activity (Capers, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1013 ); or findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors (other than section 190.3, factor (b) or (c) evidence), that aggravating factors outweigh mit

2021(People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393, 455 (Rhoades); People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1013 (Capers).) • California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require: written findings (People v. Molano (2019) 7 Cal.5th 620, 678 (Molano)); unanimous findings as to the existence of aggravating factors or unadjudicated criminal activity (Capers, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1013 ); or findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors (other than factor (b) or (c) evidence), that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, or

2025This has not resulted in the wanton imposition of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by permitting prosecutors to argue that the various features of the murder, even features that are the converse of those in other cases, are aggravating factors.’ ” (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 409, quoting Schultz, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 683.) “California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393 , 455 [ 255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 , 453 P.3d 89 ] (Rhoades));

2022(People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90 , 141–142; People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 401 .) “The death penalty scheme is not unconstitutional for failing to require . . . findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors other than section 190.3, factors (b) and (c), that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate penalty.” (People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831 , 853.) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 , Blakely v. Washington, supra, 542 U.S. 296 , Ring v. Arizona, sup

2025This has not resulted in the wanton imposition of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by permitting prosecutors to argue that the various features of the murder, even features that are the converse of those in other cases, are aggravating factors.’ ” (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 409, quoting Schultz, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 683.) “California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393 , 455 [ 255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 , 453 P.3d 89 ] (Rhoades));

2025This has not resulted in the wanton imposition of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by permitting prosecutors to argue that the various features of the murder, even features that are the converse of those in other cases, are aggravating factors.’ ” (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 409, quoting Schultz, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 683.) “California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393 , 455 [ 255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 , 453 P.3d 89 ] (Rhoades));

2021Similarly, we have held that the federal Constitution does not require that the penalty phase jury make unanimous findings “regarding the existence of particular aggravating factors” (Johnson, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 655 ; see also Rangel, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1235 ), or “findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors other than section 190.3, factors (b) and (c)” (People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831 , 853).

2021Similarly, we have held that the federal Constitution does not require that the penalty phase jury make unanimous findings “regarding the existence of particular aggravating factors” (Johnson, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 655 ; see also Rangel, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1235 ), or “findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors other than section 190.3, factors (b) and (c)” (People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831 , 853).

2019(See People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1 , 106, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 332 P.3d 1187 ; People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1015 , 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 891 , 94 P.3d 1089 ; People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686 , 753, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 485 , 115 P.3d 1145 .) The federal Constitution does not require the court to instruct the jury that the prosecution has the burden of persuasion regarding the existence of aggravating factors, nor is the court required to instruct the jury that there is no applicable burden of proof. ( People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856 , 916, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 , 365 P.3d 297 ; **

2019(See People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1 , 106, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 332 P.3d 1187 ; People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1015 , 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 891 , 94 P.3d 1089 ; People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686 , 753, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 485 , 115 P.3d 1145 .) The federal Constitution does not require the court to instruct the jury that the prosecution has the burden of persuasion regarding the existence of aggravating factors, nor is the court required to instruct the jury that there is no applicable burden of proof. ( People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856 , 916, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 , 365 P.3d 297 ; **

2024(People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 257 .) The exercise of prosecutorial discretion in different counties does not violate equal protection; Bush v. Gore (2000) 531 U.S. 98 does not require otherwise.

2020(People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1129 ; see People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 255 (Salazar).) The death penalty scheme is not unconstitutional for failing to require written findings (Winbush, at p. 490), unanimous findings (People v. Wall (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1048, 1072 (Wall)), or findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors, that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate penalty.

2022(People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90 , 141–142; People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 401 .) “The death penalty scheme is not unconstitutional for failing to require . . . findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors other than section 190.3, factors (b) and (c), that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate penalty.” (People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831 , 853.) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 , Blakely v. Washington, supra, 542 U.S. 296 , Ring v. Arizona, sup

2013(People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 464-465 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544 , 58 P.3d 391 ]; People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 661-662 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345 , 51 P.3d 224 ].) Moreover, “[s]ection 190.3, factor (a), does not violate the federal Constitution’s Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by its asserted application in a ‘ “wanton and freakish manner” ’ that allows almost all features of every murder, even features 1 “at odds,” ’ to be characterized as aggravating.” (People v. Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1007.) “ ‘The statutes are not invalid because they permit the jury

2022(People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90 , 141–142; People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 401 .) “The death penalty scheme is not unconstitutional for failing to require . . . findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors other than section 190.3, factors (b) and (c), that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate penalty.” (People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831 , 853.) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 , Blakely v. Washington, supra, 542 U.S. 296 , Ring v. Arizona, sup

2013We have repeatedly rejected each in the past and we do so again, concluding: “California’s automatic appeals procedure is not unconstitutional on the ground that it fails to provide for intercase proportionality review.” (People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1224 [ 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 786 , 274 P.3d 413 ].) “The California death penalty scheme is not constitutionally defective because it fails to require jury unanimity on the existence of aggravating factors, or because it fails to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate penalty, that aggravating factors exist, or

2022(Beck and Cruz, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 670.) For this reason, California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require written findings (People v. Molano (2019) 7 Cal.5th 620, 678 (Molano)); unanimous findings as to the existence of 57 PEOPLE v. POORE Opinion of the Court by Corrigan, J. aggravating factors or unadjudicated criminal activity (Capers, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1013 ); or findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors (other than section 190.3, factor (b) or (c) evidence), that aggravating factors outweigh mit

2021(People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393, 455 (Rhoades); People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1013 (Capers).) • California’s death penalty scheme does not violate the federal Constitution for failing to require: written findings (People v. Molano (2019) 7 Cal.5th 620, 678 (Molano)); unanimous findings as to the existence of aggravating factors or unadjudicated criminal activity (Capers, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1013 ); or findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of aggravating factors (other than factor (b) or (c) evidence), that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, or