Court Opinion

ID: 9791097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:05:20.74608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:34.021565
License: Public Domain

BURKE, J., Concurring.
The majority bases its reversal upon the admission into evidence of a voluntary confession in violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel, based upon this court’s decision in People v. Dorado, ante, p. 338 [42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361], As noted in my dissent in Dorado, concurred in by Mr. Justice Sehauer, assuming that there was error in the admission of such voluntary confession the mandate of section 4% of article VI of the California Constitution requires this court to review the entire record to determine the probability that a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached had the error not been committed (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243]) and that therefore there was a miscarriage of justice. The majority opinion in the case at hand does not indicate that there was a review of “the entire cause, including the evidence” and that the majority is of “the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” (Const., art. VI, § 4%.)
Under the mandate of article VI, section 4%, and of the supplemental rule of this court as to the test to be applied in determining whether such an error in the admission of evidence compels reversal (People v. Watson, supra (1956), 46 Cal.2d 818, 836), I have reviewed the entire cause, including the evidence, and have concluded that it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached if the subject evidence had not been erroneously *583admitted against Mm. Under these circumstances the error compels reversal and I, therefore, concur in the reversal of the judgment of conviction.