Opinion ID: 1369044
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defects in Pleading and in Proof at the Preliminary Hearing

Text: (28a) Defendant contends in substance that the multiple-murder special-circumstance findings should be vacated on the ground that the prosecution could not effectively allege these special circumstances in the information or establish them by probable cause at the preliminary hearing. Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(3) (hereafter section 190.2(a)(3)) states the relevant special circumstance as, The defendant has in this proceeding been convicted of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree. Specifically, defendant argues that it was logically impossible to allege or establish that he has in this proceeding been convicted of multiple murder before trial in this proceeding had commenced, and hence that the allegations should have been stricken. For the reasons that follow, we reject the contention. At the threshold, we doubt that defendant's claim is preserved for appeal. As he frankly acknowledges, he did not move in the superior court to set aside the information on this ground pursuant to Penal Code section 995. Of course, his failure to do so would ordinarily constitute a waiver of any defects in the commitment and accordingly bar him from complaining about any alleged irregularity at the preliminary hearing. (Pen. Code, § 996.) But even if defendant is deemed to have preserved his claim, he gains nothing: as will appear, we must reject the point on the merits. In interpreting section 190.2(a)(3) we are guided by well-settled principles. (29) In construing constitutional and statutory provisions, whether enacted by the Legislature or by initiative, the intent of the enacting body is the paramount consideration. [Citations.] `[W]e are mindful that the goal of statutory construction is ascertainment of legislative intent so that the purpose of the law may be effectuated.' ( In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 889 [210 Cal. Rptr. 631, 694 P.2d 744].) (30) We believe that section 190.2(a)(3) must be read to define the relevant special circumstance as, in substance, multiple murder when all the offenses in question are tried in the same proceeding. Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(2) (hereafter section 190.2(a)(2)) states as a special circumstance, The defendant was previously convicted of murder in the first or second degree. Section 190.2(a)(3), as quoted above, states, The defendant has in this proceeding been convicted of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree. Read together, these two provisions are plainly complementary, and were evidently intended to define a single basic special circumstance  multiple murder  which can be satisfied by convictions in a single proceeding or in more than one proceeding. [10] (28b) We turn to the case at bar. Charging two counts of murder, the information alleged as to each that in addition to [the victim named in that count], defendants murdered [the other victim] on or about the same date, within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2. It is plain that these allegations conform with section 190.2(a)(3) as we have read that provision. It is also plain that the prosecution could allege such special circumstances in the information and establish them by probable cause at the preliminary hearing. Hence, even if the allegations had been timely challenged on the ground on which defendant now rests, they could not properly have been stricken.