# People v. Tuilaepa

> California Supreme Court · December 28, 1992 · 4 Cal. 4th 569

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9561501

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL PALALAUA TUILAEPA, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 28, 1992
- **Citations:** 4 Cal. 4th 569; 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 382; 92 Daily Journal DAR 17469; 842 P.2d 1142; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10402; 1992 Cal. LEXIS 6121
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennard
- **Judges:** Baxter, Kennard
- **Cited by:** 161 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Disapproved on other grounds by People v. Harris, 43 Cal. 4th 1269 (2008).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9561501

## Opinion text

KENNARD, J.
I concur in the result and the reasoning of the majority opinion except for its conclusion that, assuming we must evaluate the aggravating factors in Penal Code section 190.3 to determine whether they are impermissibly vague in violation of the Eighth Amendment, factor (i) (‘the age of the defendant at the time of the crime”) is not vague. I see no need to resolve this issue here. Because defendant’s age played little role in either the evidence or the argument at the penalty phase, any vagueness in the trial court’s instruction to the jury on factor (i) was harmless under any standard.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 10, 1993.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9561501. Public record. Not legal advice.