# People v. Anderson

> California Supreme Court · December 23, 1968 · 70 Cal. 2d 15

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9574429

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT ARTHUR ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 23, 1968
- **Citations:** 70 Cal. 2d 15; 73 Cal. Rptr. 550; 447 P.2d 942; 1968 Cal. LEXIS 216
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sullivan
- **Judges:** Burke, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 683 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9574429

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a “verdict of murder in the first degree on a theory of a wilful, deliberate, and premeditated killing is proper only if the slayer killed as a result of careful thought and weighing of considerations; as a [deliberate judgment or plan; carried on coolly and stead…
- recognizing that the California Legislature did not intend to give "deliberate" and "premeditated" meaning other than their ordinary dictionary meanings
- noting that evidence of a preconceived design coupled with a motive is sufficient to sustain first-degree murder verdict

## Opinion text

SULLIVAN, J.
I dissent. I agree with the dissenting opinion of Justice Burke insofar as it concludes that there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict of first degree murder on the theory that the homicide was committed by defendant in the performance of, or the attempt to perpetrate, an offense proscribed by Penal Code section 288. Having reached such conclusion, I am of the view as is Justice Burke, that we are not required to uphold the verdict on the additional theory of deliberate and premeditated murder. Indeed I would join his dissenting opinion were it not for the fact that, while deeming it unnecessary to rest the verdict on a theory of deliberate and premeditated murder, the author nevertheless comments on the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict on such theory. I am not disposed to reach this question.
I would affirm the judgment.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied January 22, 1969. Peek, J., * sat in place of Mosk, J., who deemed himself disqualified. McComb, J., Burke, J., and Sullivan, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under assignment by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9574429. Public record. Not legal advice.