In re Roberts — 2 Cal. 3d 892

AI-generated from this judgment's text. It can contain errors and is not the official version.

No AI brief yet. Click to generate.

Majority

p. 892

[Crim. No. 14615.

In Bank.

July 16, 1970.]

In re DANIEL ALLEN ROBERTS on Habeas Corpus.

Counsel

Nancy A. Baker and David B. Strain for Petitioner.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Edward P. O’Brien, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

Opinion

In this habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner contends that the judgment imposing the death sentence upon him should be set aside on the ground that the jury was selected in violation of Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [20L.Ed.2d 776, 88 S.Ct. 1770 ], and on the ground that for various reasons the death penalty is unconstitutional as administered in this state. The record demonstrates Witherspoon error. Petitioner’s other contentions were answered adversely to him in In re Anderson (1968) 69 Cal.2d 613 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 21 , 447 P 2d 117 ]. Accordingly, the remittitur

Dissent

p. 893

issued in People v. Roberts, 65 Cal.2d 514 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 412 , 421 P.2d 420 ], is recalled and the judgment imposing the death penalty is reversed insofar as it relates to the penalty. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. Petitioner is remanded to the custody of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco for a new trial on the issue of penalty.

Mosk, J., did not participate herein.

I dissent. I would affirm the judgment in its entirety. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)

Cases cited

Witherspoon v. Illinois 391 U.S. 510 SCOTUS 1968-06-03 p. 892
In re Anderson 69 Cal.2d 613 Cal. 1968-11-18 p. 892
People v. Roberts 65 Cal.2d 514 Cal. 1966-12-20 p. 893