People v. Weaver
53 Cal. 4th 1056
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Weaver was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances (robbery-burglary murder) and related offenses, with firearm enhancements and great bodily injury findings; a penalty trial yielded the death penalty.
- Guilt phase relied on eyewitness identifications and a security-camera tape; the defense offered no guilt-phase witnesses.
- Defendant waived jury trial in open court and in writing, with defense counsel concurrence; waiver covered guilt, special circumstances, and penalty, and was followed by reaffirmation during the penalty phase.
- The trial court admitted victim-impact evidence at the penalty phase under Cal. Evid. Code § 190.3; the court balanced mitigation and aggravation and found the death penalty warranted.
- During the penalty phase, the court considered mitigation through § 190.3, factor (k), and weighed aggravating factors including the nature of the crime and defendant’s conduct; it conducted and then reaffirmed an automatic review under § 190.4(e).
- This automatic appeal follows Beames, Russell, and related capital-sentencing jurisprudence; the appellate court affirms the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of jury waiver for guilt and penalties | Waiver lacked separate consent for special circumstances | Waiver valid; counsel consented; included all phases | Waiver valid and knowing |
| Prosecutorial conduct in guilt phase closing | Prosecutor improperly shifted burden | No improper burden-shift; argument within permissible commentary | No reversible error; remained within permissible argument for a court trial |
| Victim-impact evidence admissibility | Allowed under § 190.3 as aggravation | Prejudicial and excessive testimony | Admissible; not unduly inflammatory; within permissible limits |
| Mitigation vs. aggravation weighing | Court properly weighed mitigating and aggravating factors | Mitigating evidence mischaracterized as aggravating | Properly analyzed; no improper treatment of mitigation |
| Section 190.4(e) independent review after jury waiver | Automatic independent review required | Waiver precludes separate 190.4 review; court conducted adequate review | Section 190.4(e) review conducted; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ernst, 8 Cal.4th 441 (1994) (jury waiver standards and voluntariness)
- People v. Memro, 38 Cal.3d 658 (1985) (separate-waiver concept for special circumstances)
- People v. Diaz, 3 Cal.4th 495 (1992) (separate waiver required for special-circumstance jury trial)
- People v. Wrest, 3 Cal.4th 1088 (1992) (separate-waiver sufficiency for special circumstances)
- People v. Edwards, 54 Cal.3d 787 (1991) (victim-impact evidence standards; limits on inflammatory impact)
- People v. Stanworth, 71 Cal.2d 820 (1969) (automatic appeal and appellate review in capital cases)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) (victim-impact evidence admissible in capital cases under U.S. Constitution)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (constitutional framework for narrowed capital statutes)
- Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1983) (legislative definition and narrowing of eligible class for death penalty)