Court Opinion

ID: 9536412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:59:31.671752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:27.066021
License: Public Domain

McCOMB, J.
I concur in Mr. Justice Sehauer’s dissenting opinion.
I am aware of no type of error that is recognized by California’s Constitution (art. VI, §4½) as being “necessarily prejudicial” in the sense of automatically requiring or permitting reversal of a superior court judgment. Our court has no power to create a ground for automatic reversal. In cases wherein the solemn death penalty has been adjudicated—certainly no less imperatively than when other consequences are at stake—the question on appeal must always involve a conclusion of relativity based on the entire record, including the evidence.
This court should not give the semblance of cheapening its function by even an implication that a reversal can be automatic. The issue is important to the defendant because his life is at stake; it is more important to the people of California because their lives are at stake every day and every night, in their jobs, in their homes, and upon the streets, unless potential killers are deterred by fear of the law. They will fear the law only in proportion to the fidelity of its enforcement.