California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hoyt, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 784, 456 P.3d 933, 8 Cal.5th 892 (Cal. 2020):
Defendants claims concerning the burden of proof are identical to those we considered and rejected in People v. Mendoza (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1056, 1096, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 808, 263 P.3d 1 : " "The death penalty scheme is not unconstitutional because it fails to allocate the burden of proofor establish a standard of prooffor finding the existence of an aggravating factor." " "Nor was the trial court required to instruct the jury that there is no burden of proof at the penalty phase. [Citation.] The federal Constitution does not require that the state bear some burden of persuasion at the penalty phase, and the jury instructions were not deficient in failing to so provide." ( Ibid . )
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.