Opinion ID: 2517324
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sufficiency of the Murder Charge in the Information

Text: (9) Defendant argues it was error to instruct the jury on first degree murder because the information charged him only with murder in violation of section 187, subdivision (a), which he characterizes as a statute defining second degree murder. Defendant claims the court lacked jurisdiction to try him for first degree murder. He recognizes that we have repeatedly held that an information charging murder in violation of section 187 is sufficient to support a first degree murder conviction. ( People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 369 [116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432], citing cases; see also People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 591 [61 Cal.Rptr.3d 580, 161 P.3d 104]; People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 131-132 [59 Cal.Rptr.3d 172, 158 P.3d 743].) However, he claims the rationale of these cases is irreconcilable with the holding of People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441 [194 Cal.Rptr. 390, 668 P.2d 697] ( Dillon ). Dillon held that section 189 is a codification of the first degree felony-murder rule. ( Dillon, supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 471-472.) Because there is only a single statutory offense of first degree murder (see, e.g., People v. Geier, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 591), defendant reasons that the relevant statute must be section 189, not section 187, which he construes as a definition of second degree murder. [7] Defendant misreads both Dillon and the statutes. Dillon made it clear that section 189 serves both a degree-fixing function and the function of establishing the offense of first degree felony murder. ( Dillon, at pp. 468, 471.) It defines second degree murder as well as first degree murder. Section 187 also includes both degrees of murder in a more general formulation. ( People v. Witt (1915) 170 Cal. 104, 108 [148 P. 928].) Thus, an information charging murder in the terms of section 187 is sufficient to charge murder in any degree. ( People v. Carey, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 132.) Defendant does not contend he lacked actual notice of the prosecution's theory of first degree murder. He does, however, assert that the information failed to allege all the facts necessary to justify the death penalty, making it defective under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 476 [147 L.Ed.2d 435, 120 S.Ct. 2348]. The Apprendi claim is illusory; the information included special circumstance allegations that fully supported the penalty verdict.