California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Slaughter, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 477, 27 Cal.4th 1187, 47 P.3d 262 (Cal. 2002):
Defendant contends that the jury should have been required to find beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following: the existence of any factor in aggravation, that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, and that death was the appropriate penalty. We rejected these arguments in People v. Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th 543, 601, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347.
Defendant contends the jury should have been required to return unanimous written findings supporting its verdict. We have rejected this contention. (People v. Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th 543, 601, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347.)
Defendant contends California should require intercase proportionality review to determine whether the death verdict in the present case is disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. We have rejected this contention. (People v. Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th 543, 602, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347.)
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.