Defendant contends the cumulative effect of the asserted errors was prejudicial. However, there was no error to accumulate.
G. Other Contentions
Defendant reiterates many challenges to California’s death penalty law that we have repeatedly rejected. We see no reason to revisit our previous decisions.
Section 190.2 is not impermissibly broad. (People v. Beames (2007) 40 Cal.4th 907, 933-934.) “Section 190.3, factor (a) (circumstances of the crime) is not applied too broadly and does not result in the arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty.” (People v. Rountree, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 862.) “Except regarding evidence of other crimes, jurors need not find aggravating factors true beyond a reasonable doubt; no instruction on burden of proof is needed; the jury need not achieve unanimity except for the verdict itself; and written findings are not required.” (People v. Livingston (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1145, 1180.) “Intercase proportionality review is not required.” (People v. Rountree, supra, at p. 862.)4 “Use of prior unadjudicated criminal activity in aggravation [is] proper.” (People v. Livingston, supra, at p. 1180.) “Section 190.3’s use of adjectives such as ‘extreme’ and ‘substantial’ in describing mitigating circumstances does not impermissibly limit the jury’s consideration of mitigating factors.” (People v. Rountree, supra, at p. 863.) “The trial court was not constitutionally required to inform the jury that certain sentencing factors were relevant only in mitigation, and the statutory instruction to the jury to consider ‘whether or not’ certain mitigating factors were present did not impermissibly invite the jury to aggravate the sentence upon the basis of nonexistent or irrational aggravating factors.” (People v. Morrison (2004) 34 Cal.4th 698, 730.) “The California death penalty scheme does not violate equal protection by treating capital and noncapital defendants differently.” (People v. Livingston, supra, at p. 1180.) “Use of the death penalty does not violate international law and is not unconstitutional.” (Ibid.)