Court Opinion

ID: 9631923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:55:43.313688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:29.766739
License: Public Domain

SPENCE, J.
I dissent.
A reading of the record leaves no doubt that defendant killed Helen Ivy and the majority concedes that “the killing *322was an extremely brutal one.” The majority reaches the conclusion, however, that ‘ ‘ there is a total lack of satisfactory evidence that the killing was committed ... in the attempt to commit rape. ...” I cannot agree with that conclusion. In my opinion, there was substantial evidence to show that the murder was committed in an attempt to commit rape. (People v. Moore, 48 Cal.2d 541, 546-547 [310 P.2d 969]; People v. Rupp, 41 Cal.2d 371, 378 [260 P.2d 1]; People v. Gutierrez, 35 Cal.2d 721, 726-727 [221 P.2d 22]; People v. Lindley, 26 Cal.2d 780, 792 [161 P.2d 227].) I find no prejudicial error in the record and would therefore affirm the judgment.
Shenk, J., and McComb, J., concurred.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied November 26, 1957. Shenk, J., Spence, J., and McComb, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.