Opinion ID: 1399120
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Claimed Multiple Counting of Aggravating Factors

Text: (39) Defendant complains that CALJIC No. 8.84.1, as read to the jury, invited improper multiple counting of the unitary course of conduct involved in his murder of Thomas Urell. He contends a reasonable juror would have considered the facts of the Urell murder first as circumstances of the crime, second as special circumstances (§ 190.3, factor (a)), and third as instances of other criminal activity (§ 190.3, factor (b)). He also argues a reasonable juror would have improperly stacked the robbery and burglary special circumstances of the Urell crime. These defects in the instruction, he contends, violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. We have rejected the same arguments in the past, holding that the instructions as a whole invite reasonable jurors neither to weigh each special circumstance twice ( People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 768-769 [244 Cal. Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741]) nor to count the circumstances of the present crime under both factors (a) and (b) of section 190.3 ( People v. Bonin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 659, 703 [250 Cal. Rptr. 687, 758 P.2d 1217]). This case is governed by our earlier decisions, since nothing in the prosecutor's arguments invited the jury to make the type of improper use of the Urell evidence that defendant suggests. [24]