Court Opinion

ID: 9723639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:24:11.70494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:50.508112
License: Public Domain

REYNOSO, J.
I concur in the result. Paulson v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 1 [22 Cal.Rptr. 649, 372 P.2d 641], does not teach a per se rule. The test, it appears to me, is whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [17 L.Ed.2d 705, 87 S.Ct. 824, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065].) I conclude that it was harmless under Chapman. I write separately to stress that error was committed; our opinion should not be interpreted to condone *86such error. Wise counsel dictates that prejudice (and reversal) not be risked and that error be avoided. While the Paulson procedure may be bothersome at times, it is the reasoned decisional law which guides all of us on the bench.
A petition for a rehearing was denied July 29, 1981, and the judgment was modified to read as printed above. Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 2, 1981. Bird, C. J., and Mosk, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.