People v. Fierro

87 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. THOMAS (KEITH TYSON)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed January 31, 2007

    Given these failings, the lack of comparative proportionality review renders the 1978 death penalty law arbitrary and capriciousin violation of the Eighth Amendment. Although section 190.3 does not require intercase proportionality review (see People v. Fierro, supra, 1 Cal.4th 173, 253), the statute does not forbid it. Instead, the prohibition on the on intercase proportionality review is a creation of this Court.

  2. PEOPLE v. SIMON (RICHARD)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed March 10, 2010

    ) Based on the Supreme Court’s construction of “circumstances of the crime,” and the plain meaning of that phrase, Justice Kennard concluded that “[a]s used in Penal Code section 190.3(a), ‘circumstancesofthe crime’ should be limited to those facts or circumstanceseither knownto the defendant whenhe or she committed the capital crime or properly adduced in proof of the underlying charges adjudicated at the guilt phase.” (People v. Fierro, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 264 [Kennard, J., conc. and dis. opn.].) A more expansive definition would render *? The capital sentencing jury in Payne heard testimony of defense witnesses offered in mitigation of the death penalty about the defendant’s churchaffiliations, his affectionate and kind relationship with his girlfriend’s children, his good character as attested to by several witnesses, and his low LQ. 164 Penal Code section 190.3 unconstitutionally vague under the Eighth Amendmentofthe United States Constitution as well as article I, section 17, of the California Constitution.

  3. PEOPLE v. CUNNINGHAM (JOHN)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed September 26, 2008

    "If the record 'suggests grounds upon which the prosecutor might reasonably have challenged' the jurors in question," the judgment should be affirmed. (People 144 v. Howard, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 1155, quoting People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Ca1.3d 1046, 1092; see also People v. Turner, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 168.) However, where the trial court failed to articulate or appears to have applied an incorrect standard in its prima facie case ruling, its decision is not entitled to deference.

  4. PEOPLE v. WINBUSH (GRAYLAND) (To be called and continued to the November 2016 calendar.)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed March 26, 2012

    Section 190.3 does not require that either the trial court or this Court undertake a comparison between this and other similar cases regarding the relative proportionality of the sentence imposed, i.e., inter- case proportionality review. (See People v. Fierro, supra, 1 Cal.4th at 253.) The statute also does not forbid it.

  5. PEOPLE v. WOODRUFF

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed August 30, 2011

    This Court has repeatedly held it “improper for the prosecutor‘to... portray defense counselas the villain in the case. ... Casting uncalled for aspersions on defense counsel directs attention to largely irrelevant matters and does not constitute commenton the evidence or argumentas to inferences to be drawn therefrom.’” (People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4" 691, People v. Woodruff, S115378 147 Appellant’s Opening Brief 749 [108 Cal.Rptr.3d 192, 229 P.3d 101], quoting People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4" 173, 212 [3 Cal.Rptr.2d 426, 821 P.2d 1302].) In Mr. Woodruff’s trial, the prosecutor repeatedly cast aspersions on defense counsel’s appearance, demeanor, competenceandintegrity.

  6. PEOPLE v. JACKSON (JONATHAN KEITH)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed September 22, 2008

    Section 190.3 does not require that either the trial court or this Court undertake a comparison between this and other similar cases regarding the relative proportionality of the sentence imposed, l.e., inter-case proportionality review. See People v. Fierro, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 253. The statute also does not forbid it.

  7. PEOPLE v. LOPEZ (JUAN M.)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed December 16, 2005

    ) 129 Moreover, to the extent appellant claims the prosecutor committed misconductby suggesting that appellant wouldpose a dangeras long as he was imprisoned (see AOB 120), this contention is meritless. This Court has repeatedly held that argumentdirected at a defendant’s future dangerousness 1S permissible at the penalty phase of a capital trial, provided thatit is based on evidence ofthe defendant’s past conductrather than expert testimony. (People y. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal. 4th 1005, 1064; People v. Fierro, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 249; People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 288.) C. Contrasting Life In Prison With The Victim’s Family Visiting Melinda’s Grave Site Appellant also argues that the prosecutor improperly contrastedlife in prison with the victim’s family visiting Melinda’s grave site.

  8. PEOPLE v. HARDY

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed June 12, 2013

    416 Evidence of gang involvement also was improperrebuttal, as the trial court initially appeared to recognize. People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, cited by the prosecutor, does not support the introduction ofthe gang induction evidence. (See 13RT 2891-2893.)

  9. BENAVIDES FIGUEROA

    Petitioner’s Reply to Informal Response

    Filed December 21, 2012

    As quoted by Respondentin its 2003 Response, Gallegos holdsthat: “fiJ/n the absence ofevidence that the jury actually considered the Governor's commutation power, there is no reasonable possibility the court’s failure to give the cautionary instruction prejudiced defendant.” Gallegos, 52 Cal. 3d at 201-02 (emphasis added); see also Fierro, 1 Cal. 4th at 250 (holding that “absent any evidence to suggest that the jury was confused about the issue or concerned that their sentence would not be carried out, the failure to [] instruct [the jury that they should assume the sentence would be carried out] cannot be deemed prejudicial”). The Gallegos holding is critical because it illustrates the importance of the facts presented in support of this claim showing that jurors indeed improperly considered impermissible factors in sentencing 594 Mr. Benavides to death that rebut the presumption that the jurors understood and followed the court’s instructions.

  10. PEOPLE v. PEREZ

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed September 13, 2012

    Shortly thereafter, the court read to the jury another instruction telling the jurors that they could considerfactor (b) as either aggravating or mitigating. 62 This Court has rejected similar claims previously (People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, 230-232.) Appellant respectfully asks the issues involved be reconsidered.