# People v. Hamilton

> California Supreme Court · December 31, 1985 · 41 Cal. 3d 408

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9562083

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BERNARD LEE HAMILTON, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 31, 1985
- **Citations:** 41 Cal. 3d 408; 221 Cal. Rptr. 902; 710 P.2d 981; 1985 Cal. LEXIS 453
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Kaus, Grodin, Bird, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Vacated by California v. Hamilton, 478 U.S. 1017 (1986).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9562083

## Opinion text

MOSK,J.
I concur in the majority opinion to the extent it affirms defendant’s conviction of first degree murder, burglary, robbery and kidnapping, but I dissent to the setting aside of the special circumstances finding and the penalty.
I cannot join in Justice Lucas’ criticism of Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 79 , 672 P.2d 862 ]. Even if one be disillusioned by the number of penalty reversals required by that decision and by People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ], stare decisis and respect for the judicial process require adherence to decisions rendered so recently by a substantial majority of this court. A petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court was sought by the Attorney General in Garcia , and review in the high court was denied. ( 469 U.S. 1229 [ 84 L.Ed.2d 366 , 105 S.Ct. 1229 ].) Thus Carlos-Garcia remains the law in California.
I agree with Justice Lucas, however, that even under Carlos , we need not set aside the special circumstance finding in this case. Intent to kill was manifest from the facts and no evidence was introduced by defendant that might raise a reasonable doubt on that issue.
Therefore I would affirm the judgment in its entirety.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 13, 1986. Lucas, J., and Panelli, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9562083. Public record. Not legal advice.