Opinion ID: 1176393
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Duplicative Special Circumstances.

Text: (40b) As previously explained, it was error to charge defendant with two multiple-murder special circumstances and to permit the jury to make findings on each charge. Permitting the jury to consider those findings as two aggravating factors at the penalty phase was also error. ( People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480, 504 [244 Cal. Rptr. 148, 749 P.2d 803].) The risk that the jury will consider each multiple-murder special circumstance charged and found true as a separate factor in aggravation, thus double counting what should be treated as a single circumstance in aggravation, is ordinarily not great because the jury is well aware of the actual number of murders. (See People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589, 620 [244 Cal. Rptr. 200, 749 P.2d 854]; People v. Kimble, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 504; People v. Allen, supra, 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1281; People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d 730, 788.) In combination with instructions and argument tending to mislead the jury as to the process by which the penalty determination is to be made, however, submitting more than one multiple-murder special circumstance for the jury's consideration at the penalty phase might have a greater impact than it otherwise would. As noted above, this is just such a case and we are unable to conclude with confidence that the error did not affect the penalty verdict.