# People v. Horton

> California Supreme Court · December 11, 1995 · 11 Cal. 4th 1068

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533442

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES F. HORTON II, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 11, 1995
- **Citations:** 11 Cal. 4th 1068; 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 516; 95 Daily Journal DAR 16579; 906 P.2d 478; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9471; 1995 Cal. LEXIS 6800
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Mosk
- **Judges:** Baxter, George, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 213 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/9533442

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a voluntary intoxication instruction is not warranted when the evidence does not indicate that the defendant’s intoxication affected his or her ability to form the necessary intent
- noting that under California law “[a] prior conviction carries a strong presumption of constitutional regularity” (cleaned up)

## Opinion text

MOSK, J.
I dissent.
I would dismiss the appeal as moot. That is because I would have vacated the underlying judgment on habeas corpus. (See In re Horton (1991) 54 Cal.3d 82, 101-104 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 305 , 813 P.2d 1335 ] (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).) It was not a superior court judge who presided over the trial of this cause and sentenced defendant to death. It was merely a commissioner, who was without authority to do so. I still “find it shocking that one who is not a judge chosen by and responsible to society can merely by inference and implication be given the awesome power of determining life or death for a human being.” (In re Horton, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 101 (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).)
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied January 24, 1996, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533442. Public record. Not legal advice.