# People v. Anderson

> California Supreme Court · October 13, 1987 · 43 Cal. 3d 1104

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9604788

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES PHILLIP ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 13, 1987
- **Citations:** 43 Cal. 3d 1104; 240 Cal. Rptr. 585; 742 P.2d 1306; 1987 Cal. LEXIS 444
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Kaufman
- **Judges:** Mosk, Lucas, Broussard, Kaufman
- **Cited by:** 458 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled — as noted by 2 later courts.
- Negative treatments: 3
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9604788

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that by statute in California, two judges must be used in capital cases involving indigent defendants, “ ‘a judge of the court, other than the trial judge presiding over the capital case in question’ ” must decide the reasonableness of all applications for funding f…
- explaining that by statute in California, two judges must be used in capital cases involving indigent defendants, "a judge of the court, other than the trial judge presiding over the capital case in question" must decide the reasonableness of all applications for funding for e…
- holding that proving intent to kill is not required when the defendant is the actual killer, but it is required when the defendant is an accomplice

## Opinion text

KAUFMAN, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting.—I concur in the reversal of the judgment of death under compulsion of People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 136, 158-159 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 800 , 689 P.2d 430 ] and People v. Montiel (1985) 39 Cal.3d 910, 928 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 572 , 705 P.2d 1248 ].
I concur fully in the majority opinion insofar as it discusses and overrules Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 79 , 672 P.2d 862 ] and in all other respects except for its purported holding there was Aranda-Bruton error here. (Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 ]; People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 353 , 407 P.2d 265 ].) In my view the entire discussion as to whether there was in fact Aranda-Bruton error is both legally incorrect and unnecessary to the decision, since the majority concludes that any such error was in any event harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. I therefore dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Aranda-Bruton error actually occurred here.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied November 12, 1987.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9604788. Public record. Not legal advice.