Opinion ID: 1355634
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Multiple Counting of Robbery, Burglary and Kidnapping Special Circumstances

Text: (11) Defendant contends it was error to charge and instruct the jury on the robbery special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i)), the burglary special circumstance ( id., (a)(17)(vii)), and the kidnapping special circumstance ( id., (a)(17)(ii)), because all three arose out of the same indivisible course of conduct, having the principal criminal purpose of robbing victim Neblett. He relies on the plurality opinion in People v. Harris (1984) 36 Cal.3d 36, 60-67 [201 Cal. Rptr. 782, 679 P.2d 433]. We have since held, however, that multiple special circumstances can be charged and considered in aggravation of the penalty where, as here, each one invades a separate societal interest. ( People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 954-955 [251 Cal. Rptr. 467, 760 P.2d 996]; People v. Melton, supra, 44 Cal.3d 713, 765-769.) Thus, it was proper to allow the jury to find and consider all three special circumstances.