Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Brown

California Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 1988No. Crim. 22646Published

1ConcurrenceMosk, J.

I concur in the opinion of the court and especially in its reaffirmation of the so-called “reasonable-possibility” test as the appropriate standard of review for errors in the penalty phase of a capital case.

I write separately to explain why I feel compelled to adhere to that test.

In People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [32 Cal.Rptr. 4, 383 P.2d 412], this court construed the mandate of article VI, section 4 Vi of the state Constitution—the predecessor of current article VI, section 13—in the context of penalty phase error. In so doing, it effectively adopted what is now termed the…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  3. Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Woodson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

18 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