Opinion ID: 1379313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence of the killing-of-witness special circumstance

Text: (12) Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the witness-killing special-circumstance findings as to both murders. We agree. The witness-killing special circumstance applies to the intentional killing of a person who witnessed a crime committed prior to, and separate from, the killing for the purpose of preventing the victim from testifying about the crime witnessed. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(10); People v. Garrison (1989) 47 Cal.3d 746, 792 [254 Cal. Rptr. 257, 765 P.2d 419].) The crime witnessed cannot be deemed `prior to, and separate from,' the killing when both are part of `the same continuous criminal transaction.' ( People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 785 [276 Cal. Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330]; People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 631 [247 Cal. Rptr. 573, 754 P.2d 1070].) In Benson, the defendant murdered a mother and then, more than a day later, two of her children. We held the murder of the mother and those of the children were integral parts of a single continuous criminal transaction against the entire family. Accordingly, the witness-killing special-circumstance findings are invalid. (52 Cal.3d at p. 785.) The same rule applies here. The murders of both Patty and Stacy were part of the same continuous criminal transaction against both victims. We thus set aside both witness-killing special circumstances. Because of this, we need not consider defendant's contention that the court erroneously instructed the jury on these special circumstances.