Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Beeler

California Supreme Court

Decided April 10, 1995No. S010164Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BAXTER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not err in its handling of the circumstances that arose on the death of Juror Coley’s father. I concur, however, in the majority’s judgment affirming defendant’s conviction and death sentence because the record on appeal does not provide a basis for determining that the error was prejudicial.

Put simply, the situation was this: Juror Coley’s father had died within a few hours before Coley returned to court on Tuesday for the third day of penalty deliberations. Coley told the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. People v. AshmusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Hawes v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
  3. People v. MarksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  4. United States v. Victor Harvey SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
  5. In Re MendesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API