existence of particular aggravating factors (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

existence of particular aggravating factors in California

5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2021 2 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.

Followed or applied (13)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Clarkgreen
cal · 2011 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2021
2 sentences

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

2016(People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1215; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 261 P.3d 243 ]; see People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ] [the penalty determination “ ‘is inherently moral and normative, not factual’ ” and therefore not susceptible of a burden of proof].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee (see Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403

12
People v. Whisenhuntgreen
cal · 2008 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2020
2 sentences

2020No. 8.88, the court need not further instruct that life without parole is mandatory if mitigation outweighs aggravation, or that life without parole is permissible even if aggravation outweighs mitigation.” (People v. Mendoza, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1097 , fn. omitted.) “The failure to instruct the jury that the prosecution bears some burden of persuasion regarding the jury’s penalty determination does not violate the Sixth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.” (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 662 .) “Nor does the failure to instruct jurors they must unanimously agree on the existence of

2010(People v. McWhorter, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 378; People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 875 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 376 , 209 P.3d 596 ]; see also People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 275 [constitutionality of death penalty law not undercut by reasoning of Ring v. Arizona, supra, 536 U.S. 584 ].) There is no constitutional requirement that a trial court instruct the jury on the “ ‘presumption of life.’ ” (People v. Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 228.) The lack of a requirement that the jury make a written statement of its findings and its reasons for the death verdict does not deprive a

12
People v. Lintongreen
cal · 2013 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2020
2 sentences

2020No. 8.88, the court need not further instruct that life without parole is mandatory if mitigation outweighs aggravation, or that life without parole is permissible even if aggravation outweighs mitigation.” (People v. Mendoza, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1097 , fn. omitted.) “The failure to instruct the jury that the prosecution bears some burden of persuasion regarding the jury’s penalty determination does not violate the Sixth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.” (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 662 .) “Nor does the failure to instruct jurors they must unanimously agree on the existence of

2016(People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1215; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 261 P.3d 243 ]; see People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ] [the penalty determination “ ‘is inherently moral and normative, not factual’ ” and therefore not susceptible of a burden of proof].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee (see Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403

12
Ring v. Arizonagreen
scotus · 2002 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2016
2 sentences

2016(People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1215; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 261 P.3d 243 ]; see People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ] [the penalty determination “ ‘is inherently moral and normative, not factual’ ” and therefore not susceptible of a burden of proof].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee (see Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403

2016(People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1215; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 261 P.3d 243 ]; see People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ] [the penalty determination “ ‘is inherently moral and normative, not factual’ ” and therefore not susceptible of a burden of proof].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee (see Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403

12
People v. Rangelgreen
cal · 2016 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

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).

11
People v. Sánchezgreen
cal · 2016 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020(Ibid; see also People v. Sánchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 488 .) F. State Bar Motion to Quash Defendant’s Subpoena On February 13, 2002, defendant’s retained counsel, Cheri A. Owen, submitted a tender of resignation, with charges pending, from the State Bar.

11
People v. Hawthornegreen
cal · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016(People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1215; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 261 P.3d 243 ]; see People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ] [the penalty determination “ ‘is inherently moral and normative, not factual’ ” and therefore not susceptible of a burden of proof].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee (see Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403

2016(People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1215; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 261 P.3d 243 ]; see People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ] [the penalty determination “ ‘is inherently moral and normative, not factual’ ” and therefore not susceptible of a burden of proof].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee (see Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403

11
Cunningham v. Californiagreen
scotus · 2007 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016(People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1215; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 261 P.3d 243 ]; see People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ] [the penalty determination “ ‘is inherently moral and normative, not factual’ ” and therefore not susceptible of a burden of proof].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee (see Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403

2016(People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1215; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 261 P.3d 243 ]; see People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ] [the penalty determination “ ‘is inherently moral and normative, not factual’ ” and therefore not susceptible of a burden of proof].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee (see Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403

11
People v. McWhortergreen
cal · 2009 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010(People v. McWhorter, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 378; People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 875 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 376 , 209 P.3d 596 ]; see also People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 275 [constitutionality of death penalty law not undercut by reasoning of Ring v. Arizona, supra, 536 U.S. 584 ].) There is no constitutional requirement that a trial court instruct the jury on the “ ‘presumption of life.’ ” (People v. Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 228.) The lack of a requirement that the jury make a written statement of its findings and its reasons for the death verdict does not deprive a

11
People v. Butlergreen
cal · 2009 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010(People v. McWhorter, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 378; People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 875 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 376 , 209 P.3d 596 ]; see also People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 275 [constitutionality of death penalty law not undercut by reasoning of Ring v. Arizona, supra, 536 U.S. 584 ].) There is no constitutional requirement that a trial court instruct the jury on the “ ‘presumption of life.’ ” (People v. Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 228.) The lack of a requirement that the jury make a written statement of its findings and its reasons for the death verdict does not deprive a

2010(People v. McWhorter, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 378; People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 875 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 376 , 209 P.3d 596 ]; see also People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 275 [constitutionality of death penalty law not undercut by reasoning of Ring v. Arizona, supra, 536 U.S. 584 ].) There is no constitutional requirement that a trial court instruct the jury on the “ ‘presumption of life.’ ” (People v. Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 228.) The lack of a requirement that the jury make a written statement of its findings and its reasons for the death verdict does not deprive a

11
People v. Prietogreen
cal · 2003 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010(People v. McWhorter, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 378; People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 875 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 376 , 209 P.3d 596 ]; see also People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 275 [constitutionality of death penalty law not undercut by reasoning of Ring v. Arizona, supra, 536 U.S. 584 ].) There is no constitutional requirement that a trial court instruct the jury on the “ ‘presumption of life.’ ” (People v. Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 228.) The lack of a requirement that the jury make a written statement of its findings and its reasons for the death verdict does not deprive a

11
People v. Wilsongreen
cal · 2008 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010(People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 89 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 211 P.3d 520 ]; People v. Wilson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 31.) Nor does the failure to instruct jurors they must unanimously agree on the existence of particular aggravating factors, but not on the existence of any mitigating factors, violate the Sixth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment.

11
People v. Friendgreen
cal · 2009 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010(People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 89 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 211 P.3d 520 ]; People v. Wilson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 31.) Nor does the failure to instruct jurors they must unanimously agree on the existence of particular aggravating factors, but not on the existence of any mitigating factors, violate the Sixth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment.

2010(People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 89 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 211 P.3d 520 ]; People v. Wilson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 31.) Nor does the failure to instruct jurors they must unanimously agree on the existence of particular aggravating factors, but not on the existence of any mitigating factors, violate the Sixth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Johnson green
cal · 2016
2 sentences

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

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).

12021–2021
People v. Silveria and Travis green
cal · 2020
1 sentence

2021(People v. Lopez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 339, 370 ; People v. Silveria and Travis (2020) 10 Cal.5th 195 , 326.) There is no requirement that the jury be instructed concerning burden of proof at the penalty phase, nor must it be instructed on a “ ‘ “ ‘presumption of life’ ” ’ ” to satisfy a defendant’s constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, a reliable determination of sentence, or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

12021–2021
People v. Barnwell green
cal · 2007
1 sentence

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

12021–2021
People v. Jones green
cal · 2017
1 sentence

2021(People v. Jones (2017) 3 Cal.5th 583 , 618-619.) Nor does defendant give us any reason to depart from our precedent holding that the death penalty statutory scheme is not rendered infirm under the federal Constitution by failing to demand written findings or unanimity as to the existence of particular aggravating factors.

12021–2021
People v. Lopez green
cal · 2018
1 sentence

2021(People v. Lopez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 339, 370 ; People v. Silveria and Travis (2020) 10 Cal.5th 195 , 326.) There is no requirement that the jury be instructed concerning burden of proof at the penalty phase, nor must it be instructed on a “ ‘ “ ‘presumption of life’ ” ’ ” to satisfy a defendant’s constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, a reliable determination of sentence, or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

12021–2021
People v. Mendoza green
cal · 2011
1 sentence

2020No. 8.88, the court need not further instruct that life without parole is mandatory if mitigation outweighs aggravation, or that life without parole is permissible even if aggravation outweighs mitigation.” (People v. Mendoza, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1097 , fn. omitted.) “The failure to instruct the jury that the prosecution bears some burden of persuasion regarding the jury’s penalty determination does not violate the Sixth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.” (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 662 .) “Nor does the failure to instruct jurors they must unanimously agree on the existence of

12020–2020
People v. Taylor green
cal · 2010
1 sentence

2020No. 8.88, the court need not further instruct that life without parole is mandatory if mitigation outweighs aggravation, or that life without parole is permissible even if aggravation outweighs mitigation.” (People v. Mendoza, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1097 , fn. omitted.) “The failure to instruct the jury that the prosecution bears some burden of persuasion regarding the jury’s penalty determination does not violate the Sixth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.” (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 662 .) “Nor does the failure to instruct jurors they must unanimously agree on the existence of

12020–2020
People v. Winbush green
cal · 2017
2 sentences

2020No. 8.88, the court need not further instruct that life without parole is mandatory if mitigation outweighs aggravation, or that life without parole is permissible even if aggravation outweighs mitigation.” (People v. Mendoza, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1097 , fn. omitted.) “The failure to instruct the jury that the prosecution bears some burden of persuasion regarding the jury’s penalty determination does not violate the Sixth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.” (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 662 .) “Nor does the failure to instruct jurors they must unanimously agree on the existence of

2020No. 8.88, the court need not further instruct that life without parole is mandatory if mitigation outweighs aggravation, or that life without parole is permissible even if aggravation outweighs mitigation.” (People v. Mendoza, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1097 , fn. omitted.) “The failure to instruct the jury that the prosecution bears some burden of persuasion regarding the jury’s penalty determination does not violate the Sixth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.” (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 662 .) “Nor does the failure to instruct jurors they must unanimously agree on the existence of

12020–2020
People v. Anderson green
cal · 2018
1 sentence

2020No. 8.88, the court need not further instruct that life without parole is mandatory if mitigation outweighs aggravation, or that life without parole is permissible even if aggravation outweighs mitigation.” (People v. Mendoza, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1097 , fn. omitted.) “The failure to instruct the jury that the prosecution bears some burden of persuasion regarding the jury’s penalty determination does not violate the Sixth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.” (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 662 .) “Nor does the failure to instruct jurors they must unanimously agree on the existence of

12020–2020
Blakely v. Washington green
scotus · 2004
2 sentences

2016(People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1215; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 261 P.3d 243 ]; see People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ] [the penalty determination “ ‘is inherently moral and normative, not factual’ ” and therefore not susceptible of a burden of proof].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee (see Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403

2016(People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1215; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 261 P.3d 243 ]; see People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ] [the penalty determination “ ‘is inherently moral and normative, not factual’ ” and therefore not susceptible of a burden of proof].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee (see Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403

12016–2016
Apprendi v. New Jersey green
scotus · 2000
2 sentences

2016(People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1215; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 261 P.3d 243 ]; see People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ] [the penalty determination “ ‘is inherently moral and normative, not factual’ ” and therefore not susceptible of a burden of proof].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee (see Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403

2016(People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1215; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 1007 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 261 P.3d 243 ]; see People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 79 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ] [the penalty determination “ ‘is inherently moral and normative, not factual’ ” and therefore not susceptible of a burden of proof].) The United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee (see Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403

12016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 187 (4)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check