Court Opinion

ID: 9737592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:29:33.681284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:59.539041
License: Public Domain

KAUFMAN, P. J.—
I reluctantly concur on the authority of Gomez v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.2d 640 [328 P.2d 976]. While I agree that the judgment must be reversed, I do not agree that the defendant should be acquitted as a matter of law as a result of double jeopardy. In the instant case, in addition to the defendant’s statement, there is the circumstantial evidence of the victim’s wallet which the police discovered after the offense, and the fact that the defendant first told conflicting stories about the wallet, but finally admitted he had removed the wallet from the body and thrown it from the car window to prevent anyone from connecting him with the *163decedent. While the prosecution is bound by the defendant’s statement, the jury, as the trier of fact, is not, as it may accept or reject the defendant’s statement as a whole or in part. If the jury completely rejected the defendant’s statement and concluded on the basis of the evidence relating to robbing the decedent of his wallet, and the shooting and killing of the decedent, the result would have to be murder in the first degree (Pen. Code, § 189); if the jury accepted the defendant’s statement as a whole, the result would have to be justifiable homicide.
I agree that there is no merit in the prosecution’s contention that the evidence indicates a murder in the second degree. The evidence in the record before us warrants a finding either of first degree murder or justifiable homicide. But for the Gomez case, the proper procedure would be to reverse the judgment with directions for a new trial, directing that the jury be given instructions only on murder in the first degree and justifiable homicide.
It cannot be said as a matter of law that there is no evidence in the record to show that defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree, a killing in the commission of a felony, to wit: robbery.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 23,1963.