# People v. Dillon

> California Supreme Court · September 1, 1983 · 34 Cal. 3d 441

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793325

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NORMAN JAY DILLON, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 1, 1983
- **Citations:** 34 Cal. 3d 441; 194 Cal. Rptr. 390; 668 P.2d 697; 1983 Cal. LEXIS 226
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Reynoso
- **Judges:** Mosk, Reynoso, Kingsley, Bird, Richardson, Broussard
- **Cited by:** 843 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by People v. Chun, 45 Cal. 4th 1172 (2009).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 3
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793325

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that first-degree felony murder includes “a variety of unintended homicides resulting from reckless behavior, or ordinary negligence, or pure accident; it embraces both calculated conduct and acts committed in panic or rage, or under the dominion of mental illness, dru…
- holding a seventeen year-old's sentence of life imprisonment for felony murder was unconstitutional as applied where the offender fatally shot his victim out of fear for his life in the course of trying to steal marijuana plants from the victim's farm when the victim-who had p…
- holding the felony-murder rule does not create a conclusive presumption of the existence of an element of the crime in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since malice aforethought is not an element of felony murder
- concluding that the plainer the intent to commit the offense, the more likely that steps taken in the early stages of the commission of the crime will satisfy the overt act requirement
- holding that the imposition of a true life sentence on a minor convicted of felony murder was cruel and unusual based on the specific circumstances surrounding the offense

## Opinion text

REYNOSO, J.
I concur in the result.
Generally, the role of a high court is to settle the law. That is, we are a court which sets decisional policy, not a court which corrects error. Accordingly, we have an institutional duty to speak with a voice which can be followed by the courts of this state. Too many separate opinions, more often than not, confuse decisional law. The case at bench, unlike most decisions demands separate opinions so that the bench and bar may know which of the distinct sections commands a majority.
I write separately only to indicate the sections in which I concur, and those sections in which I concur only in the result.
I concur with sections I, II and V. The conduct indeed went beyond preparation—it was an attempt, as section I correctly concludes. And section II realistically reasons that a crop can be the object of a robbery. Finally, section V correctly applies In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 503 P.2d 921 ]. The remaining sections (III and IV) include discussion regarding the felony-murder rule which causes me grave concern; while I agree with the result, I am not in entire agreement with the reasoning. Accordingly, I concur only in the result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793325. Public record. Not legal advice.