Court Opinion

ID: 9725504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:50:26.016306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:15.961019
License: Public Domain

*351BRAUER, J., Dissenting.
I am distressed at the denial of rehearing in the face of the fact that both the opinion of the court and my dissent were written in ignorance of a recent United States Supreme Court decision which undermined the major premise of both opinions; namely, the existence of Griffin error.
The attempt to distinguish United States v. Robinson (1988) 485 U.S. 25 [99 L.Ed.2d 23, 108 S.Ct. 864], is unpersuasive. The misconduct of defense counsel in our case was more flagrant and the district attorney’s response much more oblique than in Robinson.
I would grant rehearing, and, guided by the Robinson analysis, find that there was no Griffin error. I would then affirm the conviction as the remaining errors, if any there were, ought not to occasion a raised eyebrow laid next to California Constitution, article VI, section 13.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 28, 1989, and on February 17, 1989, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Brauer, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied April 26, 1989.