Harutyuntan v. Super. Ct.
Defendant, Alberd Harutyuntan, challenges the denial of his Penal Code[1] 995 motion to dismiss a section 190.2, subdivision (a)(10) witness killing special circumstance. We issued an alternative writ of prohibition limited solely to the section 190.2, subdivision (a)(10) witness killing special circumstance issue. We grant defendant’s prohibition petition solely as it relates to the section 190.2, subdivision (a)(10) witness killing special circumstance allegation.
This case involves four homicides directed at three members of one family and a prostitute. The chronological order of the killings is as follows. Counts 2 and 3 charge defendant with two murders on December 11, 2008. Count 2 charges defendant with the murder of Khachik Safaryan who was found dead in a family residence’s bedroom. Mr. Safaryan is the husband of Karine Hakobyan and the father of Lusine Safaryan. Count 3 charges defendant with the Lusine Safaryan’s murder. Count 3 contains the following special circumstance allegation concerning Lusine’s murder, “It is further alleged as to Count 3 that the murder of Lusine Safaryanwas committed by defendant . . . and that Lusine Safaryan was a witness to a crime who was intentionally killed for the purpose of preventing her testimony in a criminal proceeding, but that said killing was not committed during the commission and attempted commission of the crime to which she was a witness, within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2(a)(10).†Lusine was discovered shot to death in the family residence’s living room. It is this special circumstance allegation that is the subject of this opinion.
Comments on Harutyuntan v. Super. Ct.