# People v. Perez

> California Supreme Court · July 9, 1992 · 2 Cal. 4th 1117

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620261

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARTHUR RICHARD PEREZ, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 9, 1992
- **Citations:** 2 Cal. 4th 1117; 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 577; 92 Daily Journal DAR 9631; 831 P.2d 1159; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6115; 1992 Cal. LEXIS 3051
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kennard
- **Judges:** Panelli, Mosk, Kennard
- **Cited by:** 411 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/9620261

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that a defendant’s 26 act of entering a house and obtaining a knife from the kitchen was indicative of planning 27 activity
- noting premeditation and deliberation can occur in brief period of time, and may be inferred from planning activity, motive, and manner of killing

## Opinion text

KENNARD, J., Dissenting.
I agree with Justice Mosk that the evidence in this case is insufficient to support defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree. The facts of this case are not significantly different from those of People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 447 P.2d 942 ], in which this court reversed the defendant’s first degree murder conviction because there was insufficient evidence to establish that defendant committed the murder with premeditation and deliberation. As in Anderson , there is no evidence here either of planning or a preexisting motive to kill, and the manner of killing does not suggest the “ ‘careful thought and weighing of considerations for and against’ ” the killing that defines a premeditated and deliberate murder. (Maj. opn., ante, p. 1123.) I would therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which reduced defendant’s conviction from first to second degree murder.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied September 24, 1992. Mosk, J., and Kennard, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620261. Public record. Not legal advice.