Opinion ID: 1119859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Instructions on Violent Criminal Activity and Prior Felony Convictions

Text: (44), (45) The court instructed the jury it could consider as aggravating factors both other violent criminal activity (ง 190.3, factor (b)) and any prior felony conviction (ง 190.3, factor (c)). It further instructed that evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing that the defendant ... has been convicted of the crimes of murder and attempt kidnapping in Riverside County prior to the offense of murder in the first degree for which he has been found guilty in this case, and that evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing that the defendant ... has committed ... murder in the first degree and attempt kidnapping.... Defendant contends the court erroneously allowed double counting of factors (b) and (c) of section 190.3. We have, however, held that such double counting is generally permissible, as each factor has a separate purpose. ( People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 764-765 [244 Cal. Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741].) Defendant next contends the instructions wrongly suggested that he had suffered the convictions before he committed the crimes of this case. Although the instructions, viewed in isolation, were ambiguous, in context, no reasonable juror could have believed the court was referring to convictions suffered before the murders. The jury knew that the murder of Danny O. occurred a few days after the murders in this case. It knew that defendant was arrested for the three murders, and was first prosecuted in Riverside County for the crimes committed there, then for the crimes committed in San Bernardino County. No other crimes were ever mentioned. Indeed, the defense repeatedly stressed that defendant had no criminal record at all when he committed these murders. There was no possible prejudice to defendant in this regard. (46) Error of a different kind was committed, however. A felony conviction is admissible as an aggravating factor only if it was entered before the capital crime. ( People v. Webster, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 453; People v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144, 201 [222 Cal. Rptr. 184, 711 P.2d 480].) Here, the convictions were entered afterwards. Nevertheless, the error was harmless. The convictions and the facts of the underlying crimes were properly considered as evidence of other violent criminal conduct. Once the facts of the Danny O. murder were disclosed, `[t]he additional fact that defendant was convicted of that offense could have added very little to the total picture considered by the jury....' ( People v. Webster, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 454, quoting People v. Morales, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 567, italics in original; see also People v. Ashmus, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 999.)