Court Opinion

ID: 9729014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:24:25.485321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:54.895749
License: Public Domain

RACANELLI, P. J.
I concur but with the following observations:
I agree that the record contains sufficient evidentiary support concerning the Penal Code section 995 challenge to the special circumstances relating to the burglaries under the provisions of Penal Code section 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(vii); People v. Superior Court (Mendella) (1983) 33 Cal.3d 754 [191 Cal.Rptr. 1, 661 P.2d 1081], as mod. 33 Cal.3d 974c; Rideout v. Superior *319Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471, 474 [62 Cal.Rptr. 581, 432 P.2d 197]; Ghent v. Superior Court (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 944, 954 [153 Cal.Rptr. 720], However, I believe that in order to sustain the enhancement allegation against petitioner concerning the alleged burglary of the Venicia Meadows residence, proof must be adduced that a temporal relationship existed between the murder and such burglary; namely, that the murder was committed during the commission of the underlying residential burglary (People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 59 [164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468]; cf. Año v. Superior Court (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 285, 288-289 [177 Cal.Rptr. 265]) in which petitioner intentionally aided and abetted. (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (b).)
Given the basic legislative design that each special circumstance have some rational basis differentiating which murderers should be executed, the critical determination whether the murder was committed during the commission of the specified burglary is not merely ‘“a matter of semantics or simple chronology’ ” (People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 322 [165 Cal.Rptr. 289, 611 P.2d 883]) and must be factually demonstrated in terms of temporal—if not spatial—propinquity.
A petition for a rehearing was denied September 20, 1983, and petitioner’s application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 20, 1983.