Opinion ID: 2571644
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Verdict Form for Rape-felony-murder Special Circumstance

Text: The jury found true the allegation that [t]he crime of murder of the first degree of which you have found the defendant guilty was a murder committed in the commission of rape. Defendant contends the verdict form was fatally ambiguous because it is unclear whether the jury was finding defendant guilty of first degree murder on a rape-felony-murder theory (§ 189), or whether it was finding true the rape-felony-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(C)). As the Attorney General points out, defendant waived this issue by failing to object to the form of the verdict when the court proposed to submit it or when the jury returned its finding. ( People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 330, 75 Cal. Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374.) In any event, `[technical defects in a verdict may be disregarded if the jury's intent to convict of a specified offense within the charges is unmistakably clear, and the accused's substantial rights suffered no prejudice. [Citations.]' ( People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 331, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374.) Here, the jury's intent  to find true the rape-felony-murder special circumstance  is unmistakably clear because the jury was instructed: If you find the defendant in this case guilty of murder of the first degree, you must then determine if one or more of the following special circumstances are true or not true: Murder during the commission of a Burglary, Rape and/or Robbery. . . . You will state your special finding as to whether this special circumstance is or is not true on the form that will be supplied. In his closing argument the prosecutor reiterated that the jury was to indicate on the verdict form whether it found the special circumstances allegations true or not true. Finally, in its verdict in the penalty phase of the trial, the jury stated that it had found the special circumstance true. Moreover, any error in this regard was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury found in its verdict that defendant committed the murder in the commission of rape. To find the rape-felony-murder special-circumstance allegation true, they needed to find that defendant had an independent purpose for the commission of the rape, that is, that the commission of the rape was not merely incidental to the murder. ( People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 182, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150.) The evidence is overwhelming that defendant had an independent purpose to rape Mrs. Miller. He tied her hands and feet, had intercourse with her, and ejaculated inside her. He had previously done the same thing to Mrs. H., whom he did not kill. Clearly, defendant obtained perverse sexual gratification from raping the mothers of his girlfriends, whether or not he killed them. There can be no reasonable doubt that the rape of Mrs. Miller was not merely incidental to her murder. (See People v. Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 929, 245 Cal.Rptr. 336, 751 P.2d 395[[T]he omission of an instruction that an independent felonious purpose is an element of the kidnapping special circumstance was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt since no rational jury could have failed to find that a purpose other than and in addition to killing [the victim] precipitated the kidnapping].)