What is the test for reversing a finding of robbery-murder special circumstance?

Defendant contends that the cumulative effect of the asserted evidentiary and instructional errors requires reversal. Having found only one possible instance of nonprejudicial error, and given the overwhelming evidence of guilt that we have described, we disagree. (See People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1215, 1281.)

Defendant contends the robbery-murder special circumstance finding must be reversed because the felony-murder offense and the felony-murder special circumstance statutes are unconstitutionally vague. He argues the statutory scheme makes no meaningful distinction between the felony-murder offense and the felony-murder special circumstance when, as here, a defendant is the actual killer who acts without intent to kill during the commission of a felony. Defendant asserts the statutory scheme thus gives prosecutors unfettered discretion to choose whether to charge a felony-murder special circumstance enhancement, and therefore the same crime can result in different penalties, thereby encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Defendant acknowledges that a similar argument was rejected in People v. Andreasen (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 70,

Page 17