Does section 190.3 of the California Penal Code require a trial court to instruct that certain sentencing factors (d), (e), (f) and (h) are relevant only as potential mitigators?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Amezcua, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 842, 434 P.3d 1121, 6 Cal.5th 886 (Cal. 2019):

The trial court was not required to instruct that certain sentencing factors (specifically, section 190.3, factors (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (j) that are introduced by the phrase " whether or not ") are relevant only as potential mitigators. ( People v. Mendoza (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1056, 1097, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 808, 263 P.3d 1.)

The California sentencing scheme does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying capital defendants certain procedural safeguards afforded to noncapital defendants. ( People v. Johnson , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 657, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 461, 364 P.3d 359.)

Other Questions


Does Section 190.3 of the California Criminal Code require a trial court to instruct that certain sentencing factors (d), (e), (f) and (h) are relevant only as potential mitigators? (California, United States of America)
Does section 8.85 of the California Criminal Code, which instructed the jury to consider whether or not certain mitigating factors were present, unconstitutionally suggest that the absence of such factors amounted to aggravation? (California, United States of America)
Does section 8.85 of the California Criminal Code, which instructed the jury to consider whether or not certain mitigating factors were present, unconstitutionally suggest that the absence of such factors amounted to aggravation? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will a trial court be required to identify a particular sentencing factor as an aggravating or mitigating factor? (California, United States of America)
Does section 190.3, subdivision (k) of the California Criminal Code require a jury to consider "any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime" as a mitigating factor in sentencing? (California, United States of America)
Does a trial court have to satisfy the requirements of section 654 of the California Criminal Code by sentencing a defendant to time served on a charge of assault with intent to rape? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant's claim that the court should have deleted reference to irrelevant mitigating factors from the instructions given to the jury regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in determining the appropriate penalty? (California, United States of America)
For the purposes of section 1108.2(1) of the California Criminal Code, is there any constitutional error in a trial court's decision to instruct the jury in a sexual assault case to consider the use of sexual assault evidence admitted under Section 1108? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant's Special Instruction No. 3 required to inform the jury that it is free to select a sentence of life without parole even if the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors? (California, United States of America)
Does section 190.3 of the California Criminal Code require a jury to consider whether certain mitigating factors were present? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.