People v. Morse

California Supreme Court

People v. Morse

505 P.2d 1017, 8 Cal. 3d 811, 106 Cal. Rptr. 177, 1973 Cal. LEXIS 261

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1973

DocketCrim. No. 14970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 505 P.2d 1017 (People v. Morse) 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

People v. Morse, 505 P.2d 1017, 8 Cal. 3d 811, 106 Cal. Rptr. 177, 1973 Cal. LEXIS 261 (Cal. 1973).

Pincite

Opinions

[812]*812Opinion

THE COURT.

Defendant Joseph Bernard Morse was convicted of first degree murder and the penalty was fixed at death. The judgment was reversed insofar as it related to penalty and- affirmed in all other respects. (People v. Morse (1969) 70 Cal.2d 711 [76 Cal.Rptr. 391, 452 P.2d 607].) Upon retrial of the issue of penalty defendant’s punishment was again fixed at death. This appeal is automatic. (Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

In People v. Anderson (1972) 6 Cal.3d 628 [100 Cal.Rptr. 152, 493 P.2d 880], we held that the death penalty violated our state constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishments. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 6.)¹ And in Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238 [33 L.Ed.2d 346, 92 S.Ct. 2726], the United States Supreme Court ruled that imposition of the death penalty in these circumstances contravened the federal Constitution. As defendant’s death penalty must therefore be set aside, it is unnecessary to consider the claims of error arising out of his second penalty trial.

In response to an inquiry by this court, counsel for defendant reviewed the record of the guilt phase of the trial and advised us there are no tenable grounds for attacking the judgment of guilt at this time. (See People v. Ketchel (1966) 63 Cal.2d 859, 866 [48 Cal.Rptr. 614, 409 P.2d 694].)

The judgment, insofar as it provides for the penalty of death, is modified to provide a punishment of life imprisonment and as so modified is affirmed.

Mosk, J., did not participate.

McCOMB, J.

For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in People v. Anderson, 6 Cal.3d 628, 657 [100 Cal.Rptr. 152, 493 P.2d 880], I dissent from the modification of the judgment to provide a punishment of life imprisonment instead of death. (See Cal. Const., art. I, § 27.)

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

[812]*812Opinion

THE COURT.

Defendant Joseph Bernard Morse was convicted of first degree murder and the penalty was fixed at death. The judgment was reversed insofar as it related to penalty and- affirmed in all other respects. (People v. Morse (1969) 70 Cal.2d 711 [76 Cal.Rptr. 391, 452 P.2d 607].) Upon retrial of the issue of penalty defendant’s punishment was again fixed at death. This appeal is automatic. (Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

In People v. Anderson (1972) 6 Cal.3d 628 [100 Cal.Rptr. 152, 493 P.2d 880], we held that the death penalty violated our state constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishments. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 6.)¹ And in Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238 [33 L.Ed.2d 346, 92 S.Ct. 2726], the United States Supreme Court ruled that imposition of the death penalty in these circumstances contravened the federal Constitution. As defendant’s death penalty must therefore be set aside, it is unnecessary to consider the claims of error arising out of his second penalty trial.

In response to an inquiry by this court, counsel for defendant reviewed the record of the guilt phase of the trial and advised us there are no tenable grounds for attacking the judgment of guilt at this time. (See People v. Ketchel (1966) 63 Cal.2d 859, 866 [48 Cal.Rptr. 614, 409 P.2d 694].)

The judgment, insofar as it provides for the penalty of death, is modified to provide a punishment of life imprisonment and as so modified is affirmed.

Mosk, J., did not participate.

McCOMB, J.

For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in People v. Anderson, 6 Cal.3d 628, 657 [100 Cal.Rptr. 152, 493 P.2d 880], I dissent from the modification of the judgment to provide a punishment of life imprisonment instead of death. (See Cal. Const., art. I, § 27.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 P.2d 1017, 8 Cal. 3d 811, 106 Cal. Rptr. 177, 1973 Cal. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morse-cal-1973.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack