Opinion

People v. Anderson

  • 47 Cal. 4th 92
  • 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77
  • 211 P.3d 584
  • 2009 Cal. LEXIS 7479
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 23, 2009
Status
Published
Author
Moreno
On the bench
Corrigan, Moreno
Cited by
192 cases

explaining that a sentencing enhancement statute differs from a statute defining "greater and lesser degrees of the same offense" in that the enhancement addresses specified circumstances of the crime but "does not set forth ... a greater degree of the offense charged " (emphasis added) (internal quotation omitted)

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that a sentencing enhancement statute differs from a statute defining "greater and lesser degrees of the same offense" in that the enhancement addresses specified circumstances of the crime but "does not set forth ... a greater degree of the offense charged " (emphasis added) (internal quotation omitted)
  • “Like the Three Strikes law, the One Strike law is an alternative sentencing scheme . . . .”
  • “First degree burglary is a greater substantive offense than second degree burglary because it requires proof of all the elements of second degree burglary and the additional element that the area entered was used as a dwelling.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

MORENO, J.,

Concurring. — I concur in the majority opinion. The possible effect of the majority’s holding, however, is a cause for some concern. Rather than being required to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the underlying offense, the jury that tries a penalty enhancement separately will presumably be told that a defendant has been found guilty of that offense, otherwise it would not be able to convict on the enhancement. In this circumstance, there is the potential that the presumption of innocence for the penalty enhancement, in practical terms, will be eroded, and that therefore a defendant being retried on the enhancement alone will be in a more disadvantageous position than he was in the original trial when the offense and the enhancement were tried together. Whether current standard jury instructions are adequate to safeguard the presumption of innocence in this situation, or a new instruction is needed, remains to be determined.

On August 26, 2009, the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

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.