6 California opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tuilaepa v. Californiagreen2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 4 | 4 |
People v. Brasuregreen2 sentences2013(E.g., People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1066 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 , 175 P.3d 632 ]; see also Tuilaepa v. California (1994) 512 U.S. 967, 976 [ 129 L.Ed.2d 750 , 114 S.Ct. 2630 ] [‘The circumstances 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.’].) ‘Defendant’s argument that a seemingly inconsistent range of circumstances can be culled from death penalty decisions proves too much. 2013(E.g., People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1066 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 , 175 P.3d 632 ]; see also Tuilaepa v. California (1994) 512 U.S. 967, 976 [ 129 L.Ed.2d 750 , 114 S.Ct. 2630 ] [‘The circumstances 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.’].) ‘Defendant’s argument that a seemingly inconsistent range of circumstances can be culled from death penalty decisions proves too much. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Jenningsgreen2 sentences2013Specifically, the various special circumstances are not so numerous as to fail to perform the constitutionally required narrowing function, and the special circumstances are not unduly expansive, either on their face or as interpreted by this court. [Citation.] Nor did the 1978 death penalty law—enacted by the voters by way of initiative in November 1978—have the intended or practical effect of making all murderers death eligible. [Citation.]” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 688 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 133 , 237 P.3d 474 ] (Jennings).) “Section 190.3, factor (a), does not, on its face or 2013Specifically, the various special circumstances are not so numerous as to fail to perform the constitutionally required narrowing function, and the special circumstances are not unduly expansive, either on their face or as interpreted by this court. [Citation.] Nor did the 1978 death penalty law—enacted by the voters by way of initiative in November 1978—have the intended or practical effect of making all murderers death eligible. [Citation.]” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 688 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 133 , 237 P.3d 474 ] (Jennings).) “Section 190.3, factor (a), does not, on its face or | 2 | 2 |
People v. Graygreen2 sentences2012(E.g., People v. Gray, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 237, fn. 23.) Section 190.3, factor (a), does not, on its face or as interpreted and applied, permit the “arbitrary and capricious” or “wanton and freakish” imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 2010(E.g., People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 237, fn. 23 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 451 , 118 P.3d 496 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a), does not, on its face or as interpreted and applied, permit arbitrary and capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Cruzgreen2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 2 | 2 |
People v. Mungiagreen2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 2 | 2 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2013(People v. Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 688-689; People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1050-1051 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 997 P.2d 1044 ].) Section 190.3 and the pattern jury instructions based thereon are not constitutionally defective for failing to require the state to bear the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or even the burden of persuasion that an aggravating factor exists, that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, and that death is the appropriate penalty. 2013(People v. Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 688-689; People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1050-1051 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 997 P.2d 1044 ].) Section 190.3 and the pattern jury instructions based thereon are not constitutionally defective for failing to require the state to bear the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or even the burden of persuasion that an aggravating factor exists, that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, and that death is the appropriate penalty. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Streetergreen2 sentences2013“Specifically, the various special circumstances are not so numerous as to fail to perform the constitutionally required narrowing function, and the special circumstances are not unduly expansive, either on their face or as interpreted by this court.” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 688 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 133 , 237 P.3d 474 ]; accord, People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 267-268 [ 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 481 , 278 P.3d 754 ].) Allowing the jury to consider the circumstances of the crime (§ 190.3, factor (a)) does not permit arbitrary and capricious imposition of a sentence of death in v 2013“Specifically, the various special circumstances are not so numerous as to fail to perform the constitutionally required narrowing function, and the special circumstances are not unduly expansive, either on their face or as interpreted by this court.” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 688 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 133 , 237 P.3d 474 ]; accord, People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 267-268 [ 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 481 , 278 P.3d 754 ].) Allowing the jury to consider the circumstances of the crime (§ 190.3, factor (a)) does not permit arbitrary and capricious imposition of a sentence of death in v | 1 | 1 |
People v. Seatongreen2 sentences2009(People v. Williams, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 648; People v. Morgan, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 626.) The statute does not create a presumption in favor of death (People v. Salcido, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 163), nor does it permit an unconstitutional aggregation of aggravating factors (People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 690-691 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 441 , 28 P.3d 175 ]). 2009(People v. Williams, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 648; People v. Morgan, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 626.) The statute does not create a presumption in favor of death (People v. Salcido, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 163), nor does it permit an unconstitutional aggregation of aggravating factors (People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 690-691 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 441 , 28 P.3d 175 ]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 1 | 1 |
People v. Salcidogreen1 sentence2009(People v. Williams, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 648; People v. Morgan, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 626.) The statute does not create a presumption in favor of death (People v. Salcido, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 163), nor does it permit an unconstitutional aggregation of aggravating factors (People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 690-691 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 441 , 28 P.3d 175 ]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morgangreen2 sentences2009(People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 , 189 P.3d 880 ]; People v. Cruz, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 680; People v. Morgan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 593, 626 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 753 , 170 P.3d 129 ]; see also People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 663 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345 , 51 P.3d 224 ] [rejecting an overbreadth claim based upon asserted overinclusiveness of the felony-murder special circumstance].) As in prior decisions, we reject the claim that section 190.3, factor (a), on its face or as interpreted and applied, permits arbitrary and capricious imposition of a sentence of d 2009(People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 , 189 P.3d 880 ]; People v. Cruz, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 680; People v. Morgan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 593, 626 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 753 , 170 P.3d 129 ]; see also People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 663 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345 , 51 P.3d 224 ] [rejecting an overbreadth claim based upon asserted overinclusiveness of the felony-murder special circumstance].) As in prior decisions, we reject the claim that section 190.3, factor (a), on its face or as interpreted and applied, permits arbitrary and capricious imposition of a sentence of d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Crittendengreen2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 1 | 1 |
People v. Snowgreen2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 1 | 1 |
People v. Manriquezgreen2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gurulegreen2 sentences2009(People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 , 189 P.3d 880 ]; People v. Cruz, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 680; People v. Morgan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 593, 626 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 753 , 170 P.3d 129 ]; see also People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 663 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345 , 51 P.3d 224 ] [rejecting an overbreadth claim based upon asserted overinclusiveness of the felony-murder special circumstance].) As in prior decisions, we reject the claim that section 190.3, factor (a), on its face or as interpreted and applied, permits arbitrary and capricious imposition of a sentence of d 2009(People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 , 189 P.3d 880 ]; People v. Cruz, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 680; People v. Morgan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 593, 626 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 753 , 170 P.3d 129 ]; see also People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 663 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345 , 51 P.3d 224 ] [rejecting an overbreadth claim based upon asserted overinclusiveness of the felony-murder special circumstance].) As in prior decisions, we reject the claim that section 190.3, factor (a), on its face or as interpreted and applied, permits arbitrary and capricious imposition of a sentence of d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morrisongreen2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cunningham v. California
green
2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe 2009The California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad within the meaning of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whether the statute is considered on its face or as applied. ( People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 ]; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 125-126 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ].) Section 190.3, factor (a) does not permit arbitrary or capricious imposition of a sentence of death in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whethe | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.