Should Penalty Phase Jury Be Instructed to Consider Both the Defendant’s Chronological and Psychological Age?
November 10th, 2019
CJ 763(i) tells the jury to consider “the defendant’s age at the time of the crime[s]” in deciding whether or not the defendant should be sentenced to death. This factor should permit the jurors to consider the defendant’s chronological and/or psychological age in mitigation. In Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, 570, 125 […]
Tags: CC 765, CJ 8.85(i), Death Penalty
Is Felony Murder Based on “Inherently Dangerous” Felony Unconstitutionally Vague?
November 5th, 2019
People v. Frandsen (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1126 held that the California second-degree felony-murder, which requires a felony “inherently dangerous to human life” in the abstract, is not unconstitutionally vague. Johnson v. United States (2015) 576 U.S. ___ [192 L.Ed.2d 569, 135 S.Ct. 2551] is distinguishable. Unlike the federal sentencing statute invalidated in Johnson, California’s second-degree […]
Tags: CC 541, Felony Murder, Strategy Notes and Practice Ideas, Void for Vagueness
Conscious of Guilt: Court Absences — Instruction Not Warranted for Brief Refusal to Attend Trial?
October 29th, 2019
People v. Gomez (Ruben P.) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243 held that a permissive inference of consciousness of guilt is not appropriate simply because a defendant briefly refused to come to court. There was no reason to think defendant’s refusal to come to court was indicative of consciousness of guilt. Gomez may simply have been tired […]
Tags: Consciousness of Guilt
How Should the Jury Be Instructed in a Death Penalty Case in Which the Defendant Asked for the Death Penalty?
October 25th, 2019
In People v. Anderson (2018) 5 Cal.5th 372, 423 the defendant asked the jury at the punishment phase to give him the death penalty. The California Supreme Court held that the instruction set forth below “was sufficient to protect defendant from an unreliable verdict.” Sample Instruction: Each of you remains obligated to decide […]
Tags: CC 763, Death Penalty, Sample Instructions
Aider and Abettor: Natural and Probable Consequences – Unanimity as to Commission of Nontarget Offense
October 22nd, 2019
The majority opinion in People v. Smith (2014) 60 Cal. 4th 603 concluded that the requirement of juror unanimity as to all essential elements of the charge does not apply to commission of the nontarget offense alleged under the natural and probable consequences doctrine: The prosecution theory was that Littleton was the killer. But […]
Tags: Accomplice Liability, Aider and Abettor, Apprendi, Attempted Murder, CC 3500, CC 3501, CC 3502, CC 400, CC 401, CC 402, CC 403, Homicide, Mens Rea, Natural and Probable Consequences, Premeditation and Deliberation
Should Accomplice Corroboration Instruction Be Repeated at Penalty Phase?
October 18th, 2019
In People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal 5th 243 the trial court failed to reinstruct the jury during the penalty phase that independent evidence must corroborate accomplice testimony. The CSC concluded that any error was harmless. The jury had concluded the defendant was guilty in four of five murders charged. The prosecutor did not focus […]
Tags: CC 334, CC 335, Death Penalty
Should Jurors Be Cautioned Regarding Accomplice Testimony Which Is Neutral Or Exonerating?
October 15th, 2019
In People v. Smith (2017) 12 Cal. App. 5th 766, 778-80 the judge instructed the jury per the standard CALCRIM instructions that accomplice testimony requires corroboration before the jury may accept it as true. The appellate Court criticized these instructions because they failed to explain that the supporting evidence requirements applies “only when [the accomplice] […]
Tags: CC 301, CC 334, CC 335, Sample Instructions
Death Penalty Mitigation: Jurors Should Consider “Any Credible Evidence” Of Mitigating Factors
September 24th, 2019
People v. Powell (2018) 6 Cal.5th 136, 186, while not holding that such instructions were required, concluded that the standards applicable to mitigation evidence were sufficiently explained by the standard CALJIC instructions and an instruction advising “the jury that mitigating factors need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that a mitigating factor may […]
Tags: CC 763, Death Penalty
Is A Butter Knife An Inherently Deadly Weapon?
September 17th, 2019
In re B.M. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 528, 531-39 the CSC held that there was no substantial evidence that B.M. use of a butter knife was likely to cause great bodily injury within the meaning of PC 245(a). The Court reaffirmed its rule that an object alleged to be a deadly weapon must be used in […]
Tags: Assault, CC 875, Deadly Weapon
Partial-Acquittal And Double Jeopardy: CSC Adheres To Defense-Favorable Rule
September 10th, 2019
Stone v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 503 recognized the “deceptively simple” yet “complex, rapidly expanding body of law” surrounding the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy arose from both the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 15 of the California Constitution. However, Blueford v. Arkansas (2012) 566 U.S. 599, 132 […]
Tags: CC 3517, CC 3518, CC 3519, CC 542, CC 641, CC 643, Jury Deliberation, Partial Acquittal, Verdict
