stating "he [defendant] had no right to attack 'the legality of the prior adjudication . . . .' We found 'self-evident' the proposition that attempts to relitigate a prior finding of guilt are prohibited."
How later courts described this case
- stating "he [defendant] had no right to attack 'the legality of the prior adjudication . . . .' We found 'self-evident' the proposition that attempts to relitigate a prior finding of guilt are prohibited."
- holding less extensive remarks “insufficiently inflammatory” to merit reversal, though reversing for other improper argument
- noting that a trial court may not order victims to submit to psychological examinations since the legislative enactment of Cal. Penal Code § 1112
- rejects need for special rule vitiating consent of one co-occupant when the other is present and protests entry or search
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RICHARDSON, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the majority opinion to the extent that it affirms defendant’s conviction of two counts of first degree murder, and one count of second degree attempted murder. I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s reversal of the penalty. For reasons stated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in People v. Ramos (1982) ante, page 553 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 266 , 639 P.2d 908 ], the trial court herein did not err in instructing the jury that the Governor is empowered to commute a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This instruction, and a similar informational instruction regarding the power of the parole authorities to grant parole, *869 relate to matters of common knowledge to all jurors and, considering the entire record, could not possibly have prejudiced the defendant.
I also conclude that the prosecutor’s remarks to the jury regarding its possibly erroneous verdict acquitting defendant of rape and robbery charges constituted, at their worst, harmless error which, reasonably, could not have affected the jury’s verdict at the penalty phase.
In short, the matters complained of by the majority did not result in a miscarriage of justice. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)
I would affirm the judgment in its entirety.