Opinion ID: 1405704
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Double Counting of Aggravating Factor.

Text: (21) Defendant next claims that the trial court prejudicially erred by double counting the circumstances of the offenses of which he was convicted in this case under both factors (a) [the circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceedings and the existence of any special circumstances found to be true ...] and (b) [the presence or absence of criminal activity by the defendant which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence] of section 190.3. The court did, as defendant notes, discuss the offenses committed against Ms. D. in the examination of each factor. We have construed factor (b) as limited to conduct other than the immediate circumstances for which the death penalty is being contemplated. ( People v. Melton, supra, 44 Cal.3d 713, 763; People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480, 505 [244 Cal. Rptr. 148, 749 P.2d 803].) Again, however, the error was harmless. The trial judge did not undertake this independent examination of the evidence with an understanding that the number of aggravating circumstances was significant in determining whether the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating. Therefore, although he believed that the offenses against Ms. D. were relevant to both factor (a) and factor (b) there is no suggestion that he gave them additional weight for that reason. In addition, his consideration of factor (b) was not limited to the offenses against Ms. D., but included the offenses committed in the Marin-Sonoma kidnapping of Ms. Coffler, Ms. Dobbs, and Ms. Dobbs's infant child; the attempted rape of Ms. Coffler; and the violent struggle with Ms. Dobbs.