People v. Hamilton
Decision Date | 19 May 1988 |
Citation | 753 P.2d 1109,247 Cal.Rptr. 31,45 Cal.3d 351 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 753 P.2d 1109 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bernard Lee HAMILTON, Defendant and Appellant. In re Bernard Lee HAMILTON on Habeas Corpus. Crim. 21958, Crim. 25303 and Crim. S001870. |
Barry L. Morris, Oakland, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant and petitioner.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Harley D. Mayfield, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jay M. Bloom, John W. Carney, Michael D. Wellington and Pat Zaharopoulos, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
The cause in Crim. 21958 is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court, 478 U.S. 1017, 106 S.Ct. 3328, 92 L.Ed.2d 734. It was last here on automatic appeal from a judgment of death. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) Defendant was convicted of first degree murder (id., § 187), kidnapping (id., § 207), robbery (id., § 211), and burglary (id., § 459). He was found to have committed the murder in the course of robbery (id., § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i)), kidnapping (id., subd. (a)(17)(ii)), and burglary (id., subd. (a)(17)(vii)). He admitted that he had previously suffered convictions for forgery (id., § 470) and for two counts of burglary (id., § 459). He was sentenced to death.
When the cause was previously before us we held there was no reversible error at the guilt phase of the trial, but that under the general rule of automatic reversal of People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 205 Cal.Rptr. 265, 684 P.2d 826, the court's failure to instruct in accordance with Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131, 197 Cal.Rptr. 79, 672 P.2d 862, that intent to kill was an element of the felony-murder special circumstances, required the setting aside of the special circumstance findings and hence the reversal of the judgment of death. (People v. Hamilton (1985) 41 Cal.3d 408, 221 Cal.Rptr. 902, 710 P.2d 981 [Hamilton I ].)
After seeking rehearing in this court without success, the Attorney General petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The court granted the petition, ordered our judgment vacated, and remanded the cause for reconsideration in light of its decision in Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 92 L.Ed.2d 460.
Subsequently, defendant in propria persona filed two petitions for writ of habeas corpus. (Crim. 25303 and S001870.) We consolidate the cause in Crim. 21958 and the proceedings in Crim. 25303 and S001870 for purposes of decision.
As we shall explain, we conclude, as we concluded in Hamilton I, that the judgment must be affirmed as to guilt. Contrary to our determination in Hamilton I, we now conclude that the special circumstance findings must be upheld: under People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1147, 240 Cal.Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306, the court was not obligated to instruct on intent to kill with regard to the special circumstances here; and defendant does not present any other ground for setting aside the findings. We also conclude that the judgment must be affirmed as to penalty. Finally, we conclude that the petitions for writ of habeas corpus must be denied.
The facts of this case, which appear in Hamilton I at pages 413 to 419 of 41 Cal.3d, 221 Cal.Rptr. 902, 710 P.2d 981, are relevant to our decision and are accordingly quoted in extenso below.
The evidence presented in the prosecution's case-in-chief tells the following tale. "On May 31, 1979, about 1 p.m., the body of Eleanore Frances Buchanan was discovered in the grass near a cul-de-sac off Pine Valley Road, near San Diego. Harry Piper noticed it while walking back to his car from target shooting. The body had no head or hands and was clothed only in a bra, underpants and socks.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Brown
...v. Brown. (People v. Odle (1988) 45 Cal.3d 386, 418-419, 420-421, 247 Cal.Rptr. 137, 754 P.2d 184; see People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 371, 247 Cal.Rptr. 31, 753 P.2d 1109; People v. Milner (1988) 45 Cal.3d 227, 256, 246 Cal.Rptr. 713, 753 P.2d Applying these principles, we conclud......
-
People v. Harris
...prison. (Cf. People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 780-782, 251 Cal.Rptr. 83, 759 P.2d 1260; People v. Hamilton (Bernard) (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 374-376, 247 Cal.Rptr. 31, 753 P.2d 1109.) The penalty of death must therefore be set aside, and defendant remanded for a new trial on the issue ......
-
People v. Cummings
...request." ( People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d 121, 127-129, 137 Cal.Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187; see also People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 368-369, 247 Cal.Rptr. 31, 753 P.2d 1109.) Gay's motion was not timely. It may be true, as Gay now argues, that the motion was made as soon as he b......
-
People v. Coleman
...directing the jury to disregard the former instruction, the error was not prejudicial. 25 (Accord, People v. Hamilton (Bernard) (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 375-376, 247 Cal.Rptr. 31, 753 P.2d 1109.) After giving the Briggs instruction, the court added: "So that you will have no misunderstandings ......