Title: P. v. Ward

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

Filed 9/7/05 
 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S019697 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
CARMEN LEE WARD, 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
) 
Super. Ct. No. A647633 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
___________________________________ ) 
 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
THE COURT: 
 
The court’s opinion filed June 30, 2005, is ordered modified as follows: 
In 36 Cal.4th at page 193, the last sentence of the first paragraph is deleted 
and replaced with the following sentence:  “Following the penalty phase trial, the 
jury returned a verdict of death.” 
In 36 Cal.4th at page 194, the last sentence of the third paragraph is 
modified to read as follows:  “With Springer in the passenger seat giving 
directions, Stumpf drove to Norton Avenue, where they saw defendant—with 
whom Springer had previous drug dealings—standing on the sidewalk with 
another person in the vicinity.” 
In 36 Cal.4th at page 212, at the end of the last paragraph, the following 
sentence is added:  “To the extent People v. Gordon, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pages 
468 to 469, indicated that a witness could be deemed defendant’s accomplice in 
the charged offense even if the evidence of the witness’s possible involvement 
tends to show the witness committed the crime without the defendant’s 
participation, its reasoning on this point is disapproved.” 
In 36 Cal.4th at page 216, the first sentence of subpart H is modified to read 
as follows:  “Defendant contends the multiple-murder special circumstance for a 
prior second degree murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2)) is irrational and deprives him of 
due process, equal protection, and other guarantees under the federal Constitution, 
including its Eighth Amendment, because it depends on the fortuity of the order in 
which the murder convictions occur.” 
In 36 Cal.4th at page 219, at the end of the first full paragraph, the 
following sentence is added:  “In order that the form of judgment conform 
precisely to the jury’s verdict, however, we will order the judgment modified to 
reflect that the special circumstance found true was existence of a prior murder 
conviction under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(2).” 
In 36 Cal.4th at page 223, the statement of disposition (“We affirm the 
judgment”) is deleted and replaced with the following:  “The superior court’s 
judgment, report of sentence, and commitment to judgment of death are ordered 
modified to show that the special circumstance found true was previous conviction 
of murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2)).  The judgment is otherwise affirmed.” 
 
 
This modification changes the appellate judgment.