In re Roberts

California Supreme Court

In re Roberts

471 P.2d 481, 2 Cal. 3d 892, 87 Cal. Rptr. 833, 1970 Cal. LEXIS 315

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 16, 1970

DocketCrim. No. 14615

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 471 P.2d 481 (In re Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Roberts, 471 P.2d 481, 2 Cal. 3d 892, 87 Cal. Rptr. 833, 1970 Cal. LEXIS 315 (Cal. 1970).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion

THE COURT.

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 [893]*893issued 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

THE COURT.

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 [893]*893issued 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 P.2d 481, 2 Cal. 3d 892, 87 Cal. Rptr. 833, 1970 Cal. LEXIS 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-roberts-cal-1970.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack