Opinion

People v. Hovey

  • 44 Cal. 3d 543
  • 244 Cal. Rptr. 121
  • 749 P.2d 776
  • 1988 Cal. LEXIS 35
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Feb 25, 1988
Status
Published
Author
Broussard
On the bench
Broussard, Lucas, Mosk
Cited by
190 cases
Authority
More cited than 6.0%

i.e., defendant argued the witness should have been subpoenaed before he disappeared, or alternatively, periodic “tabs” should be kept on material witnesses in criminal cases

How later courts described this case

  • i.e., defendant argued the witness should have been subpoenaed before he disappeared, or alternatively, periodic “tabs” should be kept on material witnesses in criminal cases
  • "Rather than comment upon the possibility of parole or commutation, the prosecutor merely noted the possibility of an unspecified change in `laws,' or an escape from prison"; although these matters were extraneous to the penalty determination, "they were also matters of common knowledge appreciated by every juror who must choose between a death sentence and a sentence of life without parole."

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

BROUSSARD, J.

I concur in the affirmance of the conviction and finding of special circumstances. With respect to the penalty judgment, however, the appropriate inquiry is not whether there exists a legitimate basis for believing the jury was misled as to its sentencing responsibilities (see maj. opn., ante, p. 583), but whether there is a “‘legitimate basis for finding ambiguity concerning the factors actually considered by the’jury.” (California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 546 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934, 943 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ] (O’Connor, J., conc.), italics added.) In other words, in an ambiguous situation—one in which the jury may, or may not, have misunderstood its responsibilities —we must find error under the federal standard. Error does not require a finding that the jury was in fact misled, or was probably *588 misled; it requires only a finding that there is a legitimate basis (i.e., reasonable grounds) for believing it might have been misled. Because I believe that there is no legitimate basis to question whether the penalty jury in this case was misled concerning its responsibility, I concur in the affirmance of the penalty judgment.

Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied April 21, 1988.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.