# People v. Reed

> California Supreme Court · April 25, 1996 · 13 Cal. 4th 217

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9685323

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES REED, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 25, 1996
- **Citations:** 13 Cal. 4th 217; 96 D.A.R. 4801; 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 106; 96 Daily Journal DAR 4801; 914 P.2d 184; 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2894; 1996 Cal. LEXIS 1890
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Werdegar, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 221 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/9685323

## Opinion text

MOSK, J.
I concur in the judgment. After review, I have found no reversible error or other defect.
I also largely concur in the opinion prepared for the court by Justice Werdegar. On one point, however, I must part company. I would go further and expressly disapprove People v. Castellanos (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1163 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 93 ]; People v. Goodner (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 609 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 542 ]; and People v. Gonzales (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1684 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 450 ]. As Justice Werdegar’s analysis makes plain, they are erroneous and mischievous.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9685323. Public record. Not legal advice.