Opinion ID: 1377787
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Failure to Separately Charge Crimes Included as Elements of Other Special Circumstances

Text: (20) Defendant was also charged with two allegations of the special circumstance, defined in former section 190.2, subdivision (c)(3)(i) (murder in the course of robbery) and one each of section 190.2, subdivision (c)(3)(ii) (murder in the course of kidnapping) and section 190.2, subdivision (c)(3)(iii) (murder in the course of rape). All but the last were found true. Former section 190.4 provided that [w]henever a special circumstance requires proof of the commission or attempted commission of a crime, such crime shall be charged and proved pursuant to the general law applying to the trial and conviction of the crime. Defendant was not, however, charged with, nor were separate verdicts returned on the offenses underlying the special circumstances  robbery (§ 211), kidnapping (§ 207), or rape (§ 261, subd. (2)). This court held in both People v. Robertson, supra, 33 Cal.3d 21, and People v. Velasquez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 425 [162 Cal. Rptr. 306, 606 P.2d 341], that an omission to separately charge the underlying offenses was error, but was not prejudicial. We reasoned that notice was afforded by the special circumstance allegation. Defendant asks the court to reconsider this conclusion, arguing that the purpose of the requirement that the underlying crime be proved pursuant to the general law applying to the trial and conviction of crime was to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the verdict. The only support offered for the assumption that the reliability of the verdict would be enhanced is that the attention of the jury would then be properly focused on the quantum of evidence as to each element of that crime. He notes also the possibility that the jury might return a not guilty verdict as to the crime which could then be asserted as inconsistent with a finding that the related special circumstance was true. As defendant correctly points out, subsequent to Valasquez we stated in both People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, 59, and People v. Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d 303, 322, quoting Green, that a valid conviction of the underlying crime is a necessary condition to finding a related special circumstance allegation true. That statement was made in an entirely different context, however, and does not preclude upholding a special circumstance when the notice given by the charge was adequate, the instructions given to the jury required that all of the elements of the underlying crime be found to exist, and the jury was correctly instructed that the defendant's guilt of that crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In those circumstances the jury's attention is focused directly on the crime and it is proven according to the general law. The return of only a special circumstances verdict confirming the jury's finding that the defendant was guilty of the crime is a defect in form not substance. [22] The instructions on these matters given the jury in this case were adequate in all respects. [23] No demonstrable prejudice to defendant resulted from the failure to charge him with the additional crimes of robbery, kidnapping and rape.