Opinion ID: 1311837
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosing Prior-murder-conviction Special Circumstance.

Text: (1) Defendant offered to stipulate to the prior-murder conviction underlying the prior-murder-conviction special-circumstance allegation (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2)) to keep it from the jury before trial. The court rejected the stipulation on grounds it was precluded by article I, section 28, subdivision (f) of the California Constitution (Proposition 8), which provides that [w]hen a prior felony conviction is an element of any felony offense, it shall be proven to the trier of fact in open court. As the Attorney General concedes, however, because the charged murder in this case occurred before June 9, 1982, Proposition 8 has no application. ( People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251 [193 Cal. Rptr. 692, 667 P.2d 149].) Defendant asserts the court erred in rejecting the stipulation. Citing section 1093, [2] section 190.1, [3] People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143 [167 Cal. Rptr. 844, 616 P.2d 826] and People v. Bracamonte (1981) 119 Cal. App.3d 644 [174 Cal. Rptr. 191], he argues he had both a statutory and constitutional due process right to a bifurcated trial on the truth of the prior-murder-conviction special-circumstance allegation. Assuming, without deciding, that the court erred in refusing defendant's stipulation, the error was harmless in light of our determination, post at pages 20-22 that evidence of the prior murder was properly admitted at trial. Moreover, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt of the Benham murder, it is not reasonably probable a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached had the jury not been informed of the prior-murder conviction. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243].)