I concur in the judgment.
In People v. Bacigalupo (1991) 1 Cal.4th 103 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 335, 820 P.2d 559] (Bacigalupo I) appellant claimed that one of our sentencing factors (Pen. Code, § 190.3, factor (b) [prior violent criminal conduct]) was impermissibly vague under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We rejected appellant’s claim, reasoning that the United States Supreme Court had thus far applied Eighth Amendment vagueness analysis only to “statutes that govern ‘those circumstances that make a criminal defendant “eligible” for the death penalty.’ ” (Bacigalupo I, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 148, quoting Lewis v. Jeffers (1990) 497 U.S. 764, 774 [111 L.Ed.2d 606, 619, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 3099].) In California it is the special circumstances set out in Penal Code section 190.2 that make a defendant eligible for death. The sentencing factors set out in section 190.3 apply only after the defendant has already been found death-eligible under section 190.2.
When appellant renewed his claim in a petition for certiorari, the high court granted the petition, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case “for further consideration in light of Stringer v. Black [(1992)] 503 U.S__[117 *480L.Ed.2d 367, 112 S.Ct. 1130].” (Bacigalupo v. California (1992)_U.S._ [121 L.Ed.2d 5, 113 S.Ct. 32].)
In Stringer v. Black (1992) 503 U.S. _ [117 L.Ed.2d 367, 112 S.Ct. 1130] {Stringer), the high court applied Eighth Amendment vagueness analysis, as articulated in Godfrey v. Georgia (1980) 446 U.S. 420 [64 L.Ed.2d 398, 100 S.Ct. 1759] and Maynard v. Cartwright (1988) 486 U.S. 738 [100 L.Ed.2d 372, 108 S.Ct. 1853], to Mississippi law. The language in Stringer that undoubtedly prompted the high court to remand this case reads as follows: “Although our precedents do not require the use of aggravating factors, they have not permitted a State in which aggravating factors are decisive to use factors of vague or imprecise content. A vague aggravating factor employed for the purpose of determining whether a defendant is eligible for the death penalty fails to channel the sentencer’s discretion. A vague aggravating factor used in the weighing process is in a sense worse, for it creates the risk that the jury will treat the defendant as more deserving of the death penalty than he might otherwise be by relying upon the existence of an illusory circumstance. Because the use of a vague aggravating factor in the weighing process creates the possibility not only of randomness but also of bias in favor of the death penalty, we cautioned in Zant [v. Stephens (1983) 462 U.S. 862 (77 L.Ed.2d 235, 103 S.Ct. 2733)] that there might be a requirement that when the weighing process has been infected with a vague factor the death sentence must be invalidated.” (Stringer, supra, 503 U.S. at p. _ [117 L.Ed.2d at p. 382, 112 S.Ct. at p. 1139].)
The question that the high court’s order requires us to answer is whether Stringer has anything to say about California’s sentencing factors. The better reading of Stringer, in my view, is that it does not.
In Stringer the high court applied Eighth Amendment vagueness analysis to the statutory factors that make a defendant eligible for death in Mississippi. In that state, “[f]or a defendant who has been convicted of capital murder to receive the death sentence, the jury must find at least one of eight statutory aggravating factors, and then it must determine that the aggravating factor or factors are not outweighed by the mitigating circumstances, if any.” (Stringer, supra, 503 U.S. at p._[117 L.Ed.2d at p. 375, 112 S.Ct. at p. 1134]; see Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101.)
Under Mississippi law, the weighing process cannot begin, and the defendant is not eligible for the death penalty, unless and until the jury has found at least one aggravating factor to be true. Thus, by condemning “[t]he use of a vague aggravating factor in the weighing process” (503 U.S. at p._[117 L.Ed.2d at p. 382, 112 S.Ct. at p. 1139]), the high court in Stringer appears *481to have meant only that the harm caused by finding a defendant eligible for death under an unconstitutionally vague aggravating factor is not undone, and is indeed worsened, by permitting the jury to weigh the invalid factor against mitigating evidence later in the sentencing process. On its face, this holding has no obvious application to sentencing factors that, like California’s, first come into play only after the defendant has already been found eligible for death.
I am aware that the Mississippi Supreme Court has said that the narrowing process in that state ends, and a defendant becomes eligible for death, upon conviction of capital murder even though, at that point, the jury has yet to make the required finding that at least one aggravating factor is true. (Ladner v. State (Miss. 1991) 584 So.2d 743, 763.) However, it makes no sense as a practical matter to say that the narrowing process has ended and a defendant is eligible for death before the jury has made a finding that must be made before the weighing process can begin. I find implicit confirmation of this view in the Stringer court’s failure to endorse the Mississippi Supreme Court’s understanding of when the narrowing process ends.
The concurring and dissenting opinion reads Stringer as saying that the high court will now apply Eighth Amendment vagueness analysis not just to the factors that make a defendant eligible for the death penalty but also to the factors that assist a jury in selecting the appropriate punishment for a defendant who has already been found death-eligible. In reaching this conclusion, the concurring and dissenting opinion attributes much significance to the statement in Stringer that, in Clemons v. Mississippi (1990) 494 U.S. 738 [108 L.Ed.2d 725, 110 S.Ct. 1441], the high court “took for granted . . . the proposition that if a State uses aggravating factors in deciding who shall be eligible for the death penalty or who shall receive the death penalty, it cannot use factors which as a practical matter fail to guide the sentencer’s discretion.” (Stringer, supra, 503 U.S. at p._[117 L.Ed.2d at p. 381, 112 S.Ct. at p. 1139], italics added.) I attribute less significance to the statement because it occurred in the context of a discussion of Mississippi law, which is significantly different than California’s.
California’s statutory sentencing factors, in contrast to Mississippi’s, do not articulate propositions that the jury must find to be true or false. Instead, California’s factors merely direct the jury’s attention to relevant evidence, such as, for example, the circumstances of the crime, the presence or absence of prior violent criminal activity, and the defendant’s age at the time of the offense. (Pen. Code, § 190.3, factors (a), (b) & (i).) Nor does the California jury, unlike the Mississippi jury, make findings about the state of the aggravating evidence before the weighing process can begin. The high court *482has never applied Eighth Amendment vagueness analysis to a statute like California’s.1
Moreover, the principle that invalidates a statute requiring the jury to determine, as a precondition to imposing the death penalty, that a murder “was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel” (Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5)(h); see Stringer, supra, 503 U.S._[117 L.Ed.2d 367, 112 S.Ct. 1130]) does not clearly have anything to say about a statute that merely directs the jury to consider relevant evidence. A statute like the former (Mississippi’s) declares that a particular act (“heinous, atrocious or cruel” murder) is punishable in a particular manner (death) and, thus, closely resembles an ordinary criminal prohibition. The Godfrey standard, which requires that death-eligibility criteria provide “clear and objective standards” for distinguishing when the death penalty is and is not appropriate (Godfrey v. Georgia, supra, 446 U.S. at pp. 427-429 [64 L.Ed.2d at pp. 405-406]), is analogous to the vagueness standard that courts have long applied, whether under the Eighth Amendment or the Fourteenth, to statutes that apply criminal penalties to specified conduct.
In contrast, a statute like the latter (California’s) merely directs the jury’s attention to the types of evidence that make a defendant who has already been found eligible for the most serious penalty more or less deserving of that penalty, leaving “[e]ach juror . . . free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value he deems appropriate to each and all of the various factors . . . .” (People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 541 [220 Cal.Rptr. 637, 709 P.2d 440].) It is not immediately clear what, if anything, the Godfrey standard has to say about such a statute.
Thus, while I acknowledge that it is possible to read Stringer as saying that Eighth Amendment vagueness analysis applies to sentencing factors that come into play only after the defendant has been found eligible for death, that reading is far from obvious. Moreover, if the high court was addressing sentencing factors such as California’s when it condemned the use of vague aggravating factors in the weighing process (Stringer v. Black, supra, 503 *483U.S. at p__[117 L.Ed.2d at p. 382, 112 S.Ct. at p. 1139]), then it did so in language that was far from clear and in a case that did not raise the issue.
The majority’s opinion in this case reflects Stringer’s ambiguity as applied to California law. In its first 30 pages, the majority demonstrates that Stringer does not support “defendant’s contention here that the sentencing factors in section 190.3 of California’s capital scheme are subject to the ‘vagueness’ analysis of Godfrey v. Georgia, supra, 446 U.S. 420, and Maynard v. Cartwright, supra, 486 U.S. 356.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 474.) I believe this is correct and accordingly concur in this part of the opinion.
However, after announcing its conclusion the majority qualifies it with the statement, which I find inconsistent, that “[w]e do not, however, suggest that the Eighth Amendment imposes no standards whatsoever on those sentencing factors in section 190.3 of our 1978 death penalty law that can serve to aggravate penalty.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 477.) The majority then goes on to create a new Eighth Amendment vagueness standard that applies, apparently, only to sentencing factors that come into play after a defendant has already been found eligible for death. According to the majority, “[s]uch factors violate the Eighth Amendment only if they are insufficiently specific or if they direct the sentencer to facts not relevant to the penalty evaluation.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 478.)
The majority bases the new vagueness standard on People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th 569 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142], In Tuilaepa, however, we did not purport to announce such a standard. Instead, we merely “[a]ssum[ed] without deciding that section 190.3 [was] subject to [the] ‘vagueness’ concerns” articulated in Stringer (Tuilaepa, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 594) and, based on that assumption, concluded that our sentencing factors were not vague (id. at p. 595). By creating a new vagueness standard the majority today goes much farther than we went in Tuilaepa.
The majority also finds support for its new vagueness standard in Stringer itself. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 477.) But in view of the majority’s earlier conclusion that the vagueness analysis articulated in Stringer does not apply to California’s sentencing factors, it is difficult for me to understand how Stringer is an appropriate citation. Either Stringer applies to our sentencing factors or it does not.
This, in my view, is how we should resolve the instant case: Properly interpreted, Stringer has nothing to say about California’s sentencing factors; but assuming for the sake of argument that it does, our sentencing factors are not vague. We have found this approach to be satisfactory in prior opinions *484(e.g., People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 944 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, 855 P.2d 1277]; People v. Sims (1993) 5 Cal.4th 405, 465-466 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 537, 853 P.2d 992]; People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1017, 1071 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 174, 846 P.2d 756]; People v. Tuilaepa, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 594-595), and I agree for the reasons stated in those opinions that our sentencing factors are not vague. In contrast, the majority’s approach burdens California’s criminal law with a new Eighth Amendment requirement that will affect no other state because of the limited precedential value of our decisions on matters of federal law. Because our prior opinions show that we need not take such a step to ensure that our judgments satisfy the Eighth Amendment, I would not take it.
Recent cases in which petitioners have challenged aggravating factors as vague have involved laws similar to Mississippi’s, under which the sentencer must find at least one aggravating factor true before weighing such factor or factors against the mitigating evidence. 0Richmond v. Lewis (1992) 506 U.S. _ [121 L.Ed.2d 411, 113 S.Ct. 528] [interpreting Arizona law, under which “[t]he death penalty may be imposed only if at least one of 10 statutory aggravating circumstances exists” (Arizona v. Kiles (1993) 137 Ariz. 8 [857 P.2d 1212, 1223]; see Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-703(E)]; Espinosa v. Florida (1992) 505 U.S._ [120 L.Ed.2d 854, 112 S.Ct. 2926] [interpreting Florida law, under which “death may be the appropriate recommendation if, and only if, at least one statutory aggravating factor is established” (Dougan v. Florida (Fla. 1992) 595 So.2d 1, 4; see Fla. Stat. § 921.141(2)(a))].)