Opinion ID: 1226896
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intentional-murder-for-financial-gain Special Circumstances

Text: (41a) Defendant attacks the intentional-murder-for-financial-gain special-circumstance findings. He contends, inter alia, that the evidence in support is insufficient. In People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 751 [209 Cal. Rptr. 328, 691 P.2d 994, 64 A.L.R.4th 723], in order to avoid overlap with the felony-murder special circumstance, we construed the intentional-murder-for-financial-gain special circumstance to apply only when the victim's death is the consideration for, or an essential prerequisite to, the financial gain sought by the defendant. Subsequently, in People v. Howard (1988) 44 Cal.3d 375 [243 Cal. Rptr. 842, 749 P.2d 279], we clarified our construction by stating that the relevant inquiry is whether the defendant committed the murder in the expectation that he would thereby obtain the desired financial gain ( id. at p. 409, italics added)  as, for example, in the killing of a victim in a murder for hire ( id. at p. 410), or in an attempt to secure the proceeds of a life insurance policy covering the victim ( People v. Hamilton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1178 [259 Cal. Rptr. 701, 774 P.2d 730]) or to avoid a debt owing to the victim ( People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1025 [254 Cal. Rptr. 586, 766 P.2d 1] (lead opn. of Kaufman, J.)). (42) In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence for a special circumstance, the question we ask is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. (E.g., People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 785.) (41b) In our judgment, no rational trier of fact could have so found on this record. The evidence establishes beyond peradventure that defendant committed the murder of Hanson and Blount squarely under the special circumstances of felony-murder-burglary and felony-murder-robbery. Neither death was the consideration for, or an essential prerequisite to, any financial gain he may have sought. ( People v. Bigelow, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 751.) Nor did he perpetrate either offense in the expectation that he would thereby obtain any financial gain. ( People v. Howard, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 409, italics added.) Accordingly, the intentional-murder-for-financial-gain special-circumstance findings are not supported by sufficient evidence and hence must be set aside. (Compare People v. Adcox, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 246 [arriving at the same conclusion on similar facts].)