People v. Moore
Decision Date | 22 January 1960 |
Docket Number | Cr. 6553 |
Citation | 2 Cal.Rptr. 6,348 P.2d 584,53 Cal.2d 451 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 348 P.2d 584 PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. William Gerald MOORE, Jr., Defendant and Respondent. |
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lowell E. Lathrop, Dist. Atty., San Bernardino, for appellant.
John C. McCarthy, Pomona, for respondent.
The People appeal from an order modifying the verdict by reducing the punishment imposed for defendant's crime, murder in the first degree, from death to life imprisonment. Penal Code, § 1238, subd. 6. The trial court made the order of modification in passing upon defendant's motion for a new trial. At that time both defendant's motion for a new trial and his motion to reduce the degree of his crime were denied, but defendant does not appeal. We have concluded that under authority of this court's remand order and of the governing statute (Pen.Code, § 1181, subd. 7) the trial court had the power to make the challenged modification, and that the order should be affirmed.
On April 4, 1956, defendant was indicated for the crime of murder. A jury trial resulted in a verdict of first degree murder, with the penalty fixed at death. Thereafter defendant's motion for a new trial was denied and the court pronounced judgment imposing the death penalty. Upon the automatic appeal to this court (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b)), the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial were affirmed. People v. Moore, 48 Cal.2d 541, 310 P.2d 969. The remittitur was duly issued on June 10, 1957.
In September 1957 defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and stay of execution. On December 12, 1958, this court issued the following order:
Following the filing of this remand order, the People petitioned this court to vacate it on the ground that there was no legal basis for the recall of the remittitur. This petition was denied. Thereafter on January 27, 1959, a remittitur, couched in the language of the remand order of December 12, 1958, issued and was filed in the superior court on January 28, 1959.
On March 18, 1959, pursuant to this court's remand order and second remittitur, this matter came on for hearing in the superior court. Defendant again moved for a new trial, on the same grounds as theretofore urged almost three years earlier, or for reduction of the degree of the crime. Both motions were denied, but the court then made the following order: 'Under the provisions of Section 1181 Penal Code the Court Orders the Verdict, heretofore finding the defendant guilty of the offense of Murder In The First Degree, a felony without recommendation dated September 5, 1956, modified to impose upon the defendant, life imprisonment in lieu of death by administration of lethal gas for the crime of Murder In The First Degree, a felony.'
The People contend that the trial court lacked the power to make this order. They contend that in a jury trial, the exclusive discretion to determine the penalty in first degree murder cases is given to the jury (Pen.Code, § 190, as it read at the time of trial and as amended in 1957; Pen.Code, § 190.1, enacted in 1957); and that while the trial court, on a motion for a new trial, may reduce the degree of the crime in a murder case (People v. Borchers, 50 Cal.2d 321, 325 P.2d 97; People v. Sheran, 49 Cal.2d 101, 315 P.2d 5), the trial court may not modify or reduce the punishment to a sentence of life imprisonment in lieu of the death penalty as found by the jury. As supporting authority, the People cite such cases as People v. Brust, 47 Cal.2d 776, 791-792, 306 P.2d 480; People v. Green, 47 Cal.2d 209, 235, 302 P.2d 307; People v. Thomas, 37 Cal.2d 74, 77-78, 230 P.2d 351; People v. Odle, 37 Cal.2d 52, 57-58, 230 P.2d 345. These cases are generally directed to the power of the appellate court and hold that such court may not reduce the punishment for 'the trier of fact is vested with exclusive discretion to determine punishment.' People v. Green, supra, 47 Cal.2d at page 235, 302 P.2d at page 325. A different situation is presented here involving the trial court's power following this court's remand order.
Penal Code, section 1181, subdivision 7, provides: (Emphasis added.) The trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Pineda
...and that there was no intent to vacate the judgment to permit further inquiry regarding that issue. (Cf. People v. Moore (1960) 53 Cal.2d 451, 454, 2 Cal.Rptr. 6, 348 P.2d 584.) The matter is controlled by the considerations which evoked the following passage in People v. Oppenheimer (1965)......
-
People v. Hill
...to reduce the penalty' (56 Cal.2d 720, 727, 16 Cal.Rptr. 777, 781, 366 P.2d 33, 37), and we, quoting from People v. Moore (1960) 53 Cal.2d 451, 454, 2 Cal.Rptr. 6, 348 P.2d 584, stated: "Although the jury in a jury trial has the exclusive power in the first instance to select the penalty fo......
-
People v. Mabry
...to reduce the degree or crime where it determines that the weight of the evidence dictates such action. (E.g., People v. Moore, 53 Cal.2d 451, 454, 2 Cal.Rptr. 6, 348 P.2d 584; People v. Sheran, 49 Cal.2d 101, 108--109, 315 P.2d 5.) However, while an appellate court under subdivision 6 is g......
-
People v. Massie
...of its power to reduce the penalty but also failed to give defendant's motion the Consideration required by People v. Moore ((1960) 53 Cal.2d 451, 454, 2 Cal.Rptr. 6, 348 P.2d 584) and People v. Sheran ((1957) 49 Cal.2d 101, 109, 315 P.2d 5). * * * If the only error was the failure of the t......