Does the Court of Appeal hold that the death penalty cannot be imposed under sentencing procedures that create a substantial risk that it would be inflicted in a capricious manner?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Seumanu, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 195, 355 P.3d 384, 61 Cal.4th 1293 (Cal. 2015):
23 Furman has been authoritatively interpreted as holding that the death penalty cannot be imposed under sentencing procedures that created a substantial risk that it would be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. (People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 173, 158 Cal.Rptr. 281, 599 P.2d 587.)
23 Furman has been authoritatively interpreted as holding that the death penalty cannot be imposed under sentencing procedures that created a substantial risk that it would be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. (People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 173, 158 Cal.Rptr. 281, 599 P.2d 587.)
24 < http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/CCFAJFinalReport.pdf> (as of August 24, 2015).
24 < http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/CCFAJFinalReport.pdf> (as of August 24, 2015).
25 For example: < http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/capital_punishment/docs/condemnedinmatelistsecure.pdf> [as of August 24, 2015].
25 For example: < http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/capital_punishment/docs/condemnedinmatelistsecure.pdf> [as of August 24, 2015].
26 For example: < http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/homicide/hm11/hm11.pdf> [as of August 24, 2015].
26 For example: < http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/homicide/hm11/hm11.pdf> [as of August 24, 2015].
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
