Court Opinion

ID: 9576253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:22:20.684646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:34.434925
License: Public Domain

TRAYNOR, J.
I dissent.
Had it been necessary for the jury to determine only whether defendant killed decedent in the perpetration of a robbery, I could agree that the errors committed at the trial were not prejudicial. The jury was also presented, however, with a very close question whether the crime was committed in California, and it was required to determine the penalty that should be imposed. The majority opinion concedes that unnecessary but highly inflammatory evidence and evidence of other crimes was erroneously admitted, and it is apparent from the record that the prosecutor deliberately presented his case with the purpose of inflaming the jury. I cannot say that he did not succeed in this purpose or that a different verdict would have been improbable had the evidence been excluded. (People v. Bemis, 33 Cal.2d 395, 401 [202 P.2d 82]; People v. Newson, 37 Cal.2d 34, 46 [230 P.2d 618].) *272Accordingly, the judgment and order appealed from should be reversed.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied May 11, 1955. Carter, J., and Traynor, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.