What factors must a jury consider at the penalty phase?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Earp, 20 Cal.4th 826, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15 (Cal. 1999):

"[S]ection 190.3, factor (a), specifically permits the jury to consider at the penalty phase '[t]he circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding and the existence of any special circumstances found to be true....' As we have held, the trial court need not give a ' "clarifying gloss" ' on factor (a) ' "to inform the jury that its penalty determination must not be based on facts that are 'common to all homicides.' " ' [Citation.] The argument to the contrary reveals 'a "basic misunderstanding" of the statutory scheme since, in order to perform its moral evaluation of whether death was the appropriate penalty, the facts of the murder "cannot comprehensively be withdrawn from the jury's consideration...." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 965-966, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 897 P.2d 574.) In addition, there is no constitutional requirement that in considering the aggravating circumstances of a capital crime, the penalty phase jury must "factor out" those constituent parts common to all first degree premeditated or felony murders. (Id. at p. 966, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 897 P.2d 574; accord, People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 164, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418, 954 P.2d 990 [rejecting the argument that "double counting" of facts common to all first degree murders as facts in aggravation precludes any meaningful distinction between those who are sentenced to death and those who are not].) The same is true with regard to facts establishing the special circumstances.

Other Questions


Does section 190.3 of the California Criminal Code require a penalty phase jury to consider a defendant's unadjudicated criminal activity as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase? (California, United States of America)
In a penalty retrial of a convicted murderer, what is the effect of a hung jury at the penalty phase of his penalty trial? (California, United States of America)
Can a jury consider an escape attempt as an aggravating factor at the penalty phase? (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)
Can a jury consider the fact that there was an assault during the penalty phase of a robbery as an aggravating factor? (California, United States of America)
Does a jury have a constitutional obligation to consider mitigating factors at the death penalty phase? (California, United States of America)
Does section 654 of the California Death Penalty Act prohibit a penalty phase jury from considering separate crimes based on the same act of violence? (California, United States of America)
Can a jury consider the leniency granted to an accomplice as a mitigating factor at the penalty phase? (California, United States of America)
Can a jury consider the fact of defendant's mental problems as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant's failure to testify at the penalty phase an error not to instruct the jury to refrain from drawing any inference from the fact that defendant did not testify at penalty phase? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.