Court Opinion

ID: 9738169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:43:54.269151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:04.097449
License: Public Domain

CONLEY, P. J.I dissent.
I think it is a mischievous technique for a trial court, or an intermediate appellate court, to base a decision on a surmise as to what the Supreme Court, or other appellate court, might do if an appeal on a related matter is later taken, particularly when, in the process, a time-honored rule of procedure is flatly overruled. In this case, the defendant’s motions for a new trial in connection with two of the trifurcated parts of a murder ease *237were denied some 17 months before the present ruling; at that time, the trial court granted the motion for a new trial with respect to the third of the trifurcated inquiries made by the jury, namely, the penalty phase of the case, but denied the motions as to both the guilt and insanity phases. The present ruling from which an appeal has been taken by the People is that, notwithstanding the original denial of the motions for a new trial on the guilt and the insanity issues, the court nevertheless presently grants a new trial also on both of those phases, apparently because it thinks that the Supreme Court, or other appellate court, will ultimately reverse the conviction on all issues if the final judgment in the case is appealed.
Neither a trial court, nor an intermediate appellate court, can legislate. And this, it seems to me, is exactly what the trial court and this court have done; for it has been, not only once but many times, held that when a trial court denies a motion for a new trial that ends the matter, and jurisdiction is no longer present in the trial court to upset the prior ruling. (People v. Walker, 142 Cal. 90 [75 P. 658]; People v. Fice, 97 Cal. 459, 460 [32 P. 531]; People v. Martin, 199 Cal. 240 [248 P. 908]; In re Levi, 39 Cal.2d 41, 45 [244 P.2d 403]; People v. Paysen, 123 Cal.App. 396, 399 [11 P.2d 431]; People v. Ingersoll, 21 Cal.App. 763, 764 [132 P. 1052]; Vernon v. Rappaport, 25 Cal.App.2d 281, 283-294 [77 P.2d 257]; People v. Coronado, 57 Cal.App.2d 805, 813-815 [135 P.2d 647]; People v. Collins, 97 Cal.App.2d 552, 554-555 [218 P.2d 87]; 36 Cal.Jur.2d, New Trial, § 3, p. 129, § 168, pp. 380-381, § 170, pp. 383-384; Fricke, Criminal Procedure (6th ed.) p. 130, p. 411.) Furthermore, the decisions of the Supreme Court “. . . are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California.” (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].)
I would reverse the present order granting a new trial as to guilt and insanity.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied April 13, 1966. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.