Opinion ID: 2544661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence of a Killing During Robbery

Text: Defendant contends that even if, as we have concluded, the trial evidence is sufficient to support the verdict finding him guilty of robbery, it is not sufficient to support the special circumstance finding that the murder occurred in the commission of the robbery. More particularly, he argues that the guilt phase evidence is insufficient to establish that the robbery was not merely incidental to the killing in the sense that defendant's primary criminal goal was to kill rather than to steal. To prove a felony-murder special circumstance like murder in the commission of a robbery, the prosecution must show that the defendant had an independent purpose for the commission of the felony, that is, the commission of the felony was not merely incidental to an intended murder. ( People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 182, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150.) Concurrent intent to kill and to commit an independent felony will support a felony-murder special circumstance. ( People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 903, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678, 830 P.2d 712.) It is only when the underlying felony is merely incidental to the murder that the felonymurder special circumstance does not apply. ( Ibid. ) We find here no evidence suggesting, or requiring the jury to conclude, that defendant took Pedersen's property merely to obtain a reminder or token of the incident (see People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 41, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 84, 931 P.2d 262), to give a false impression about his actual motive for the murder, or in some other way to facilitate or conceal the killing (see People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 984, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122, 846 P.2d 704). Nor was there substantial evidence of any motive for the murder apart from accomplishing the robbery. Rather, the jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that defendant killed Pedersen primarily and perhaps solely to facilitate the robbery, by preventing him from resisting or from alarming neighbors or others. (See People v. Turner, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 688, 268 Cal.Rptr. 706, 789 P.2d 887.) Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the robbery-murder special circumstance.