California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Criminal Law and Procedure
 

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
Criminal Law Case Summaries

■ People v. Curl, No. S034072

Defendant Robert Zane Curl was convicted by a jury of the first degree murder of Richard Urban (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))[1] as to which the jury found that defendant had personally fired one of the shots that caused Urban’s death.  The trial court then found true the special circumstance allegation that defendant had been previously convicted of second degree murder.  (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2)).[2]  After a court trial, defendant was sentenced to death.  This appeal is automatic.  (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); § 1239, subd. (b).)

We affirm the judgment. . . .

II.  DISCUSSION

            A.   Challenge to the Constitutional Validity of Defendant’s Prior Murder Conviction

Defendant contends that the prior-murder special‑circumstance finding should be reversed because the constitutional validity of the underlying plea, which was the basis of the special circumstance allegation, was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  In this connection, he contends that our earlier opinion in this case, Curl v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1292, in which we held that a defendant does not have a right to a jury trial on the constitutional validity of a prior conviction and  bears the burden of proving such invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence, was superseded by Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466.  In Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”  (Id. at p. 490.)  Two years later, in Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584, the Supreme Court held that Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme ran afoul of the Sixth Amendment because it allowed the sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty.  (Ring, supra, 536 U.S. at p. 609.)  The court, citing language from Apprendi, stated “The dispositive question, we said, ‘is one not of form, but of effect.’  [Citation.]  If a State makes an increase in a defendant’s authorized punishment contingent on a finding of fact, that fact — no matter how the State labels it — must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”  (Ring, supra, 536 U.S. at p. 602.)  Concluding that “Arizona’s enumerated aggravating factors operate as ‘the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense,’ [citation], the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.”  (Id. at p. 609.)

As we shall explain, however, the question of the constitutional validity of a prior conviction does not fall within the framework set forth in Apprendi and Ring for those issues of fact as to which the Sixth Amendment requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Accordingly, we reject defendant’s claim. . . .

■ HELD:

Conviction for first degree murder and sentence of death is affirmed where: 1) the court's prior-murder special-circumstance finding was proper, as defendant does not have a right to a jury trial on the constitutional validity of his prior conviction and bears the burden of proving the invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence standard; 2) the record does not support defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct and trial court misconduct; 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding impeachment evidence and limiting cross examination of a prosecution witness; and 4) the death penalty statute is not unconstitutional.
People v. Curl 5/18/09 -S034072-SC
People v. Curl 5/18/09 -S034072-SC

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory       
Case Summaries Directory