Opinion ID: 1372628
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Double-charging the Multiple-murder Special Circumstance.

Text: (32a) Defendant argues that his sentence must be reversed because the state improperly alleged twice the special circumstance of having been convicted of multiple murder in the same proceeding. (33) We do not normally review a charging decision unless there is a claim that invidious discrimination caused it. ( People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 971 [4 Cal. Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571].) No such claim is advanced here. (32b) We agree that one of the special circumstance findings must be set aside ( id. at p. 955; People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 191 [5 Cal. Rptr.2d 796, 825 P.2d 781]), but do not agree that the error requires reversal of the judgment. The jury could not have been confused about the number of victims, nor was it urged to engage in a mechanical counting of aggravating factors. (See People v. Hernandez (1988) 47 Cal.3d 315, 357 [253 Cal. Rptr. 199, 763 P.2d 1289].) Defendant insists, in supplemental briefing, that this error requires reversal of the judgment because the prosecution's penalty phase case was weak. We do not agree with the premise of that contention: the case in aggravation was not weak.