Court Opinion

ID: 9626117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:02:58.492069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:21.780665
License: Public Domain

BURKE, J.
I dissent. The receipt into evidence of Varnum’s statements did not result in a miscarriage of justice. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 4½; People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 343].) The record shows that Norman Merrill, a service station attendant, was robbed, kidnaped for the purpose of robbery, and murdered, and, apart from Varnum’s
*634statements, there is substantial evidence that he committed these brutal offenses. This evidence includes, among other things, proof that Varnum’s fingerprints were on the car used during the kidnaping and on a container for credit cards at the service station and evidence that on the night the crimes were committed Varnum had possession of the revolver that fired one of the lethal bullets into Mr. Merrill’s back. James Fields, the victim of the assault with intent to commit robbery, positively identified Varnum as one of the perpetrators of that offense. Varnum presented no evidence whatsoever in his own behalf.
From my examination of the entire cause I am not of the opinion that it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to Varnum would have been reached in the absence of the error in admitting his statements. (People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) For this reason, under the mandate of section 4½, article VI, of the California Constitution, I would deny the relief sought and permit the second penalty trial to proceed.
McComb, J., and White, J.,* concurred.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied January 5, 1966. Mosk, J., did not participate therein. McComb, J., Burke, J., and White, J.,* were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under assignment by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.