People v. Anderson

57 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. ROUNTREE (CHARLES F.)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed February 22, 2010

    In Anderson, this Court carefully considered whether United States Supreme Court decisions required that an acutal killer harbor an intent to kill or other heightened mensrea to be eligible for the death penalty. (43 Cal.3d at pp. 1146-1147.) Appellant has not presented a persuasive argumentto justify revisiting this settled issue.

  2. PEOPLE v. THOMAS (KEITH TYSON)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed January 31, 2007

    [Citation.]" Likewise, in People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1137 [240 Cal.Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306], this Court found that photographs of the victim “seem relevant only on whatin this case is a non-issue[i.e. whether a human being was killed] and therefore should not have been received into evidence.” .

  3. PEOPLE v. MORA

    Appellant, Ruben Rangel, Opening Brief

    Filed July 28, 2010

    Thus, for instance, California’s multiple murder special circumstance applies equally to a defendant who, motivated by racial hatred, deliberately kills several minority children in separate incidents, as well as to a defendant who,in the course of a robbery, accidentally kills one woman andhernine week-old fetus, which the defendant did not know the woman wascarrying.(See e.g., People v. Davis (1994) 7 Cal.4th 797, 810; People v. Anderson, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1149-1150.) Under California’s statutory scheme, one jury could sentence the accidental killer to death, while another jury could spare the life of the defendant who deliberately killed hi victims based ontheir race. “The prospect of such ‘wanton and freakish’ death sentencing is intolerable under Furman andthe cases following it.”

  4. PEOPLE v. PEOPLES (LOUIS JAMES)

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed September 17, 2013

    In doing so, the court denied appellant his previously enumerated state and federal constitutions at both phasesoftrial. (People v. Cavanaugh, supra, 44 Cal.2d 252; People v. Anderson, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1104; Lisenba v. California, supra, 314 U.S. 219, 228; Zant v. Stephens, supra, 462 U.S. 862, 885.) 172 XIV. APPELLANT HAS NOT FORFEITED ANY OF HIS CLAIMS THATHIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHENTHETRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY ADMITTED PREJUDICIAL AGGRAVATION EVIDENCE AND WHEN THE PROSECUTOR IMPROPERLY EXPLOITED THE EVIDENCE IN THE PENALTY PHASE RETRIAL, AND THE ERRORS ARE NOT HARMLESS.

  5. PEOPLE v. MORA

    Appellant, Joseph Adam Mora, Reply Brief

    Filed April 16, 2012

    In the wakeof these decisions, this Court held in People v. Anderson, supra,that for the actual killer, the multiple- murderspecial circumstance does not require proof of an intent to kill. (43 Cal.3d at pp. 1149-1150; see also RB 89.) Anderson’s holding wascodified in section 190.2, subdivision (b); Tison’s holding in section 190.2, subdivision (d). None of these casesor statutes, cited by respondent, eliminated the intent to kill requirement for the multiple-murder special circumstanceas applied to an aider and abettor of a felony who wasnot the actual killer of the victim.

  6. PEOPLE v. WINBUSH (GRAYLAND) (To be called and continued to the November 2016 calendar.)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed March 26, 2012

    Except in one rarely-occurring situation, under this Court's interpretation of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17), if the defendant is the actual killer in a robbery felony-murder, the defendant also is death- eligible under the robbery-murderspecial circumstance. (See People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 631-632 [the reach of the felony-murder special circumstancesis as broad as the reach of felony murder and both applyto a killing "committed in the perpetration of an enumerated felonyif the killing and the felony ‘are parts of one continuous transaction.”) The key case is People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1147, where the Court held that under section 190.2, "intent to kill is not an element of the felony-murder special circumstance.” Since Anderson,in rejecting challenges to the various felony-murder special circumstances, this Court repeatedly has held that to seek the death penalty for a felony- murder, the prosecution need not prove that the defendant had any mens 288 rea as to the killing.

  7. PEOPLE v. GOMEZ

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed March 21, 2012

    In that situation, California law is clear that a defendantis not eligible for the death penalty unless the state proves a culpable mentalstate as to the murder— either an intent to kill, or, at least, reckless indifference to humanlife. (See, e.g., People v. Anderson, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1147; Pen. Code § 190.2(d).) The question then becomes whether such a broad special | circumstance — rendering defendants death eligible even where there has been no finding of a culpable mental state as to the actual killer — violates the Eighth Amendment.

  8. PEOPLE v. MORA

    Appellant, Joseph Adam Mora, Opening Brief

    Filed December 10, 2009

    Thus, for instance, California’s multiple murderspecial circumstance applies equally to a defendant who, motivated by racial hatred, deliberately kills several minority children in separate incidents,as well as to a defendant who,in the course of a robbery, accidentally kills one woman and her nine-week-old fetus, which the defendant did not know the woman wascarrying. (See, e.g., People v. Davis (1994) 7 Cal.4th 797, 810 [person responsible for death of eight-week-old fetus may be convicted of murder]; People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1149-1150 [intent to kill not required for the actual killer under the multiple murder special circumstance].) Under California’s statutory scheme, one jury could sentence the accidental killer to death, while another could sparethe life of the defendant who deliberately killed his victims based on their race.

  9. PEOPLE v. ROUNTREE (CHARLES F.)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed September 14, 2009

    (5 CT 1247-i248, 1428- 1434.) Counsel for Mr. Rountree joined in the written opposition (See 1 RT 3, 15-16) and argued separately. 141 (1984) 37 Cal.3d 302,321, overruled on another ground in People v. Anderson, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1149 [error to admit crime scene photos that were unnecessary to prove any part ofthe prosecution's case].) As a general rule, "[t]he trial court's exercise ofdiscretion in .- determining relevance and the admissibility ofphotographs will not be disturbed on appeal unless their probative value clearly is outweighed by their prejudicial effect."

  10. MANRIQUEZ

    Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

    Filed January 10, 2008

    Under the Briggs Initiative, the majority of the special circumstances for the actual killer, including the felony-murder circumstances, have no homicide mens rea requirement. See Cal. Pen. Code § 190.2(a)(17); see also People v. 303 A/723797971 Anderson, 43 Cal. 3d 1104 (1987). The Briggs Initiative expanded death- eligibility for accomplices by eliminating the "personal presence" and "physical aid" requirements generally applicable under the 1977 law. 730.