# People v. Seel

> California Supreme Court · November 29, 2004 · 34 Cal. 4th 535

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452435

## Case

- **Full name:** THE PEOPLE, and v. WILLIAM HARLOW SEEL, and
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 29, 2004
- **Citations:** 34 Cal. 4th 535; 2004 Daily Journal DAR 14170; 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 179; 100 P.3d 870; 2004 Cal. LEXIS 11331
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennard
- **Judges:** Brown, Chin, Kennard
- **Cited by:** 113 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452435

## Opinion text

KENNARD, J., Concurring.
I join the majority, whose central holding now embraces a view I articulated in a dissenting opinion eight years ago.
In People v. Bright (1996) 12 Cal.4th 652 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 732 , 909 P.2d 1354 ], a majority of this court held that a finding that an attempted murder was committed willfully, deliberately, and premeditatedly was merely a penalty provision, not an element of a crime greater than attempted murder. I dissented, suggesting that the federal Constitution may well guarantee the right to a jury trial even if premeditation was “merely a circumstance affecting the penalty for attempted murder.” (Id. at p. 692 (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).) I noted that such a premeditation finding “will expose the defendant to a penalty of life imprisonment, as compared with a maximum term of nine years for attempted murder without premeditation.” (Ibid.) Thus, I said, it might “well be unconstitutional to deprive the defendant of a right to jury trial on the issue of premeditation.” (Ibid.) The correctness of that view has now been confirmed by the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [ 147 L.Ed.2d 435 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 ], which in turn compels the result in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452435. Public record. Not legal advice.