Court Opinion

ID: 9722361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:26:55.949259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:34.566811
License: Public Domain

POCHÉ, J.
I reluctantly concur in the result in light of the recent decision of People v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144, 171-177 [222 Cal.Rptr. 184, 711 P.2d 480], which has, in my view, watered down Williams v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 441 [204 Cal.Rptr. 700, 683 P.2d 699], to the point that no longer will trial court decisions on severance motions be subject to any genuine appellate review. Instead, such decisions will be upheld on the basis of boilerplate paragraphs.
That is not to say that I believe that due process will be served by trying these unrelated, and not-cross-admissible, rape charges together, or that judicial economy is served by a consolidated trial: the evidence simply is not overlapping. What is foreseeable is that defendant will be convicted on both crimes so long as the evidence on one is convincing. I have a hard time squaring that with the notion of a due process right to a fair trial, but after Balderas, such notions are irrelevant. Balderas makes Williams either a sport in the law or a case limited to its facts. In either event the California Supreme Court has spoken authoritatively.
Petitioner’s application for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 20, 1986.