Opinion ID: 2625875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Instructions on Motive and the Special Circumstance Allegation

Text: Defendant contends that CALJIC No. 2.51, discussed above, and CALJIC No. 8.81.10, which, as given, told the jury that one element of the charged witness-killing special circumstance was that the witness was intentionally killed for the purpose of preventing his testimony in a criminal proceeding were inconsistent. Because motive and purpose are closely related concepts, defendant argues, the jury may have been misled into believing that the special circumstance allegation need not be proven. We disagree. The instructions were not inconsistent, as CALJIC No. 2.51 referred to the crime charged, i.e., murder, and not to the special circumstance allegation. Even allowing for misunderstanding on that particular point, it was not reasonably likely ( People v. Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 958, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183) that the jurors would have been misled in the manner defendant suggests, as they were repeatedly and expressly instructed to find the special circumstance allegation true only if each element, including the purpose of preventing the victim's testimony, was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [21] The instructions, taken as a whole, did not deprive defendant of a fair trial or a reliable penalty determination.