reviewing court must determine whether the sentence is "so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of the community" or "violate the principles of fundamental fairness"
How later courts described this case
- reviewing court must determine whether the sentence is "so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of the community" or "violate the principles of fundamental fairness"
- punishment is constitutionally disproportionate if it “shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity”
- "Clinical studies `support and confirm the traditional legal provisions which have treated [indecent exposure] as a social nuisance, [i.e.,] as disorderly conduct rather than an offense causing personal injury ...' This is so because the commission of the offense invariably entails no physical aggression or even contact...."
- employing a shocks the conscience and offends human dignity test
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in People v. Caddick
8 Cal.3d 410, 414 , superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re Palmer (2021) 10 Cal.5th 959
The opinion
McCOMB, J.
I dissent. I would deny the writ.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied January 3, 1973.