Opinion ID: 1182062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: The Automatic Motion for Reduction of Penalty

Text: (45) Defendant contends the court erred in denying his automatic motion to modify the death penalty verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), as well as posttrial motions for a new trial and acquittal (§ 1181). He points to certain remarks made by the court which he contends were inconsistent with the robbery-murder special-circumstance finding. We disagree. Defendant acknowledges the court's explicit statement as follows: The Court notes and considers that this murder was done to effectuate robbery which means purely selfish gain by force. Thus, the court was well aware of the robbery-murder special circumstance; it clearly and explicitly endorsed the jury's finding in that respect. The court's other remarks, e.g., its references to motives of pure thrill of extinguishing human life and a desire to eliminate the most damaging witness of the crime are not inconsistent with the robbery-murder finding. In the course of a robbery and to further his commission of the robbery, a defendant may kill callously or to eliminate witnesses or with multiple purposes or motivations. ( People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 101 [270 Cal. Rptr. 817, 793 P.2d 23].) So long as he has killed in order to advance an independent felonious purpose ( People v. Morris, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 21; italics omitted), the special circumstance is present. We are satisfied the evidence more than adequately supports the jury's verdict that defendant killed in order to advance such a purpose, i.e., a robbery, and that the trial court independently and correctly reached the same conclusion in ruling on all posttrial motions. ( People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1045 [264 Cal. Rptr. 386, 782 P.2d 627].) There was no error in the denial of any of these motions.