Opinion ID: 1351145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Overlapping sentencing factors

Text: (64) Defendant asserts the court had a sua sponte duty to modify former CALJIC No. 8.84.1 to make it clear the jury should not double- or triple-count statutory sentencing factors (a) (circumstances of the crime), (b) (uncharged criminal activity involving force or violence), and (c) (presence or absence of prior felony conviction). (§ 190.3.) First, we have held, contrary to defendant's premise, that the jury may properly consider a single underlying event under both factors (b) and (c). ( People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 764-765 [244 Cal. Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741].) We have also held that a jury should not double count under both factors (a) and (b), but we have also noted that in the absence of prosecutorial argument inviting the jury to do so, any ambiguity in the language of the statute or [former] instructions will rarely ... cause [] prejudice. ( Id., at p. 763.) Here there was no misleading argument, and we find no basis on which to conclude the jury was misled. As we have held, in these circumstances the court has no sua sponte duty to modify the instruction. ( People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480, 505 [244 Cal. Rptr. 148, 749 P.2d 803].)