Court Opinion

ID: 9738448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:53:18.734466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.167766
License: Public Domain

FORD, J.*
I concur in the determination that each judgment of conviction must be affirmed. However, in my judgment an erroneous answer was given by the court to the jury in response to the jury’s question as to whether “a second degree verdict on count 1,” the murder charge, would “contradict the guilty verdict on count 2 [the conspiracy charge] of one defendant while the other defendant is found guilty of first degree on count 1 and guilty on conspiracy count 2.” (See People v. Ditson, 57 Cal.2d 415, 449 [20 Cal.Rptr. 165, 369 P.2d 714]; State v. Ochoa, 41 N. M. 589 [72 P.2d 609, 614-615].) Error of that nature makes necessary a careful consideration of the record for the purpose of determining whether it was prejudicial. In this ease it does not appear to be reasonably probable that a result more favorable to either of the defendants would have been reached in the absence of such error. Consequently, it cannot be said that there has been a miscarriage of justice. (See People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243].)
*780The petition of appellant Tregoff for a rehearing was denied April 3, 1963, and appellants’ petitions for a hearing by the Supreme Court were denied May 8, 1963.

Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.