This error so infected the integrity of the proceeding against Petitioner that the error cannot be deemed harmless and the State will be unable to meet its burden in showing this error harmless. In any event, this violation of Petitioner's rights had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdicts, rendered the verdicts fundamentally unfair and resulted in a miscarriage of law. CLAIM 12: THE DEATH SELECTION PROCESS USED TO CONDEMN PETITIONER TO DEATH VIOLATED PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 717. Petitioner's convictions, judgment of death, and confinement are unlawful and unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 1, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, and 28 of the California Constitution. Petitioner's convictions, judgment of death, and confinement were obtained in violation of his rights to heightened reliability in the sentencing process, protection from double jeopardy, trial by jury, assistance of counsel, presentation of a defense, a fair and impartial jury, a reliable penalty determination, equal protection, and due process because California's death penalty statute fails to narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty and permits the imposition of death in an arbitrary and capricious manner; the death selection factors upon which the jury was instructed were unconstitutionally vague, unreliable, and failed to 294 A172379797.1 channel the jury's discretion; the trial court instructed the jury on the death selection factors without any effort to narrow or define any of the vague and overbroad language; the trial court did not convey that the central determination is whether the death pena

le v. Whitt (1990) 51 Cal.3d 620 People v. Williams (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 638 People v. Williams (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 565 People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153 People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635 People vy. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148 People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149 In re Sakarias (2005) 35 Cal.4th 140 Schlumpfv. Superior Court (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 892 People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 Superbrace, Inc. v. Tidwell (2004) 124, Cal.App.4th 388 Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257 Ward v. Taggart (1959) 51 Cal.2d 736 Wong v. Di Grazia (1963) 60 Cal.2d 525 STATE STATUTES Civil Code section 3510 Civil Code section 3511 Code of Civil Procedure section 128 Evidence Code section 210 Evidence Code section 350 Evidence Codesection 1101 xitl 51 15, 16 124 51 21,45 33 91, 123 50 33 46 40 52, 124 52 118 118 40 21, 82 58 66, 81, 82, 98, 108 Penal Code section 1111 20, 21 Penal Code section 1259 33, 43, 45 Penal Code Section 995 3 Penal Code section 1138 39 Rules of Court, Rule 13 128, 129 MISCELLANEOUS CALJIC No. 2.11.5 29, 30, 32, 33 CALJIC No. 3.00 44 California Center for Judicial Education and Research (CJER), CJER Mandatory Criminal Jury Instructions Handbook (12th ed. 2003), 54 XiV IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. A711739 Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. California Supreme Court No. $049596 STANLEY BRYANT, DONALD FRANKLIN SMITH, and LEROY WHEELER Defendants and Appellants. APPELLANT DONALD SMITHW’S REPLY BRIEF In this Reply BriefAppellant does not respond to all ofRespondent's conten- tions, most of which are fully covered by Appellant’s Opening Brief.