Opinion ID: 1215965
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect of Invalid Special Circumstances

Text: (14) The jury found two special circumstances, a heinous murder and a torture murder. The former finding was invalid under People v. Superior Court (Engert), supra, 31 Cal.3d 797. In light of our determination to uphold the torture-murder finding, the invalid heinous-murder special circumstance was undoubtedly harmless error. (Cf. People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1281-1282 [232 Cal. Rptr. 849, 729 P.2d 115].) Having reviewed the record, we find no evidence that was submitted to support the heinous-murder special circumstance that was not equally admissible to support the torture-murder special circumstance. The heinous murder and torture-murder special circumstances were substantially similar, especially as to the type of evidence that would support either of them. Moreover, section 190.3, subdivision (a) expressly provides the jury could consider [t]he circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted.... The only effect the heinous-murder finding could have had on the jury was thus merely a consequence of the statutory label special circumstance. We find that such possibility could not have affected the jury's verdict. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that a death sentence is valid under these circumstances. ( Zant v. Stephens (1983) 462 U.S. 862, 888-889 [77 L.Ed.2d 235, 256-257, 103 S.Ct. 2733].)