Opinion ID: 2640086
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence of Financial Gain

Text: In addition to sustaining special circumstances involving multiple murder and murder while lying in wait, the jury found that Sonia's murder was intentional and carried out for financial gain. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(1).) The prosecution's theory in this regard, as reflected in evidence and argument at trial, was that defendant killed Sonia to end the $375 monthly child support payments she received by garnishing his wages at the Bank. In various motions (e.g., regarding acquittal, instructions, and a new trial) defendant argued that the prosecution did not prove he expected or received any direct financial gain from Sonia's death. The trial court rejected all such challenges to the financial gain special circumstance. Defendant argues here, as below, that he had nothing to gain from eliminating child support payments to Sonia because he was required to support his son Michael even after Sonia died. Under defendant's view, the prosecution could not sustain its burden of proof absent evidence that he anticipated an inheritance, insurance, or other direct pecuniary gain from Sonia's death. Violations of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution have allegedly occurred. We disagree. (15) Section 190.2, subdivision (a)(1) applies to murders motivated by financial gain. ( People v. Hamilton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1178 [259 Cal.Rptr. 701, 774 P.2d 730], applying People v. Howard (1988) 44 Cal.3d 375, 409-410 [243 Cal.Rptr. 842, 749 P.2d 279], and People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 751 [209 Cal.Rptr. 328, 691 P.2d 994].) However, such gain need not be the sole or main motive for the murder. ( People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240, 282 [2 Cal.Rptr.3d 554, 73 P.3d 433], following People v. Noguera (1992) 4 Cal.4th 599, 635 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d 1160] ( Noguera ).) Nor must defendant experience any actual pecuniary benefit from the victim's death. ( People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1025 [254 Cal.Rptr. 586, 766 P.2d 1] ( Edelbacher ).) `[T]he relevant inquiry is whether the defendant committed the murder in the expectation that he would thereby obtain the desired financial gain.' ( Ibid., quoting People v. Howard, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 409.) In Edelbacher, supra, 47 Cal.3d 983, the defendant killed his estranged wife, with whom he had a child, in order to avoid making child support payments. Such payments were in arrears and were the subject of a wage garnishment order entered shortly before her death. The defendant, who struggled to pay other bills as well, also owed his wife a substantial amount to equalize the community property division in their pending marital dissolution action. Edelbacher first rejected the defendant's claim that the financial gain special circumstance was overbroad and unconstitutional as applied there. To the contrary, this court reasoned that it would be arbitrary and irrational to conclude that cancellation of a debt or the avoidance of a loss does not constitute a financial benefit, since such motivation is no less repugnant than killing someone for direct profit. ( Id. at p. 1025.) Edelbacher further found the evidence sufficient to show a financial motive for murder. We emphasized the benefit the defendant expected to receive either by the extinguishment of debts upon his wife's death, or by gaining custody of his son and acquiring control of the son's inheritance from the estate. ( Id. at p. 1026.) Likewise, the jury could readily infer beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant killed Sonia because he believed her death would ease his financial strain. The evidence showed that the $375 monthly child support obligation substantially reduced his net pay, that his modest income from the Bank was his main asset, that his liabilities overshadowed his assets, and that he had difficulty paying his monthly bills such that he worried about declaring bankruptcy. More to the point, defendant perceived his child support obligation to Sonia as a tremendous burden, calling her a bitch and whore who deserved to die, and saying that his financial future would be fucked if nothing changed. The jury could conclude that defendant sought to benefit financially from Sonia's death by gaining control of the money which, by court order, he was paying her for Michael's support, and by having the ability to decide that less money should be spent in that regard. The prosecution made a similar point in closing argument. (16) We reject defendant's related claim that the financial gain special circumstance is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad under federal law. As noted above, a similar contention failed in Edelbacher, supra, 47 Cal.3d 983. Nothing in our interpretation of the statute there, or its application here, extends death eligibility to every homicide involving a family member to whom the killer owed a duty of support. The special circumstance is limited to those murders, including those intrafamilial murders, committed with the expectation that they would produce the desired financial benefit. ( Id. at p. 1025.) No overbreadth or vagueness problem appears. (Accord, Noguera, supra, 4 Cal.4th 599, 636.)