Is the death penalty statute not unconstitutional despite not requiring a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance has been proved?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Krebs, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 95, 452 P.3d 609, 8 Cal.5th 265 (Cal. 2019):

The death penalty statute is not unconstitutional despite not requiring "findings beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance (other than Pen. Code, 190.3, factor (b) or (c) evidence) has been proved, that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate sentence." ( People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1235, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 367 P.3d 649.)

"Because capital defendants and noncapital defendants are not similarly situated,

[452 P.3d 674]

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

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.

Other Questions

Is the death penalty statute not unconstitutional despite not requiring a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance has been proved? (California, United States of America)

Is the death penalty unconstitutional for failing to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)

Does the doctrine of reasonable doubt apply to a defendant's due process right to appeal against a jury verdict that diminished the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)

Is the death penalty unconstitutional for failing to require that the jury base any death sentence on written findings? (California, United States of America)

In what circumstances have courts rejected the argument that CALCRIM No. 220 of the Criminal Code requires the prosecution to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)

Does Defendant have a claim that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it could impose the death penalty only if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that death is appropriate? (California, United States of America)

In what circumstances will a jury interpret the instructions of a jury as permitting a conviction on a standard less than beyond beyond beyond the reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)

In what circumstances have the courts found that CALCRIM No. 220 of the California Criminal Code, or Cal.Crim No.220, is sufficient to compel a jury to find that a prosecutor must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)

In what circumstances will a jury not be required to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)

Does a jury's collective finding of doubt constitute a collective finding that a juror has a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)

Is the death penalty statute not unconstitutional despite not requiring a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance has been proved?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources