noting that prosecutor’s “urging use of evidence for a purpose other than the limited purpose for which it was admitted is improper argument”
How later courts described this case
- noting that prosecutor’s “urging use of evidence for a purpose other than the limited purpose for which it was admitted is improper argument”
- restating prior decisions of California courts for the proposition that the right to a public trial can be waived by a failure to object, and holding that defense counsel waived the appellant's claim of a denial of the right to a public trial by agreeing at trial to the exclusion of the public from a reading of certain trial testimony to the jury during its deliberations
- finding no ineffective assistance where trial counsel agrees to defendant’s request not to call his grandmother in mitigation hearing, reasoning that client has the final say
- abrogated on other grounds by People v. Diaz, 60 Cal. 4th 1176 (2015)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by People v. Diaz, 60 Cal. 4th 1176 (2015)
49 Cal.3d 991, 1041-1042 , abrogated on other grounds by People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176, 1190
Distinguished
Distinguished by People v. Diaz, 3 Cal. 4th 495 (1992)
Defendant argues that People v. Bloom, supra, 48 Cal.3d 1194, and People v. Lang, supra, 49 Cal.3d 991 are distinguishable.
Distinguished by People v. Crew, 1 Cal. App. 4th 1591 (1991)
Lang, supra, 49 Cal.3d 991, 1044) that a judge performed his duties in accordance with law are inapposite as they are rebutted by the record.
The opinion
BROUSSARD, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree generally with the views expressed by Justice Mosk in his concurring and dissenting opinion.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied February 1, 1990. Mosk, J., and Broussard, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.