Opinion ID: 1249738
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Multiple Counting of Aggravating Factors and Special Circumstances.

Text: (54) Defendant argues that the trial court's reading of CALJIC No. 8.84.1, which tracks the language of section 190.3 (see, e.g., People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d 152, 224), misled the jury into thinking it could double-count aggravating acts, and that the jury was allowed to double-count defendant's conviction for multiple murders and the accompanying special circumstances. We find no error. With regard to the double-counting of aggravating acts, we have held that the court has no sua sponte duty to modify the instruction absent misleading prosecutorial argument. ( People v. Siripongs (1988) 45 Cal.3d 548, 583 [247 Cal. Rptr. 729, 754 P.2d 1306].) [T]he prosecutor's argument focused on the evidentiary facts themselves and thereby allayed the danger that any particular fact would be counted in support of more than one factor. ( People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 186-187 [246 Cal. Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629].) As for defendant's contention that the jury was allowed to consider special circumstances more than once under factor (a) of section 190.3 (see People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d 152, 224), we have held that the trial court should, on request, admonish the jury not to consider multiple special circumstances more than once for exactly the same purpose in the penalty determination lest it lead to the result defendant asserts may have occurred here. ( Ibid. ) Defendant, however, did not request any admonition of the kind he now suggests should have been made. Nor do we see any misleading argument or substantial likelihood of double-counting.... ( Id. at pp. 224-225.) Accordingly, reversal is not called for. (See id. at p. 225.) For these reasons, we cannot find the Eighth Amendment violation defendant perceives: nothing in the record suggests that any right to heightened reliability in the fact-finding process was infringed upon.