Court Opinion

ID: 9633547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:51:33.608924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:36.946176
License: Public Domain

SCHAUER, J., Concurring and Dissenting,
Obedient to the mandate of article VI, section 4%, of the California Constitution I have made “an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence,” and am of the opinion that it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendants Polk and Gregg would have been reached in the absence of error committed on the penalty phase.
Accordingly, on the record in this case, and for all the reasons explained and documented in my concurring and dissenting opinion in People v. Hines (1964) ante, p. 175 [37 Cal.Rptr. 622, 390 P.2d 398], I dissent from the judgment of reversal and would affirm in its entirety each of the judgments of the trial court.
McComb, J., concurred.
The petition of appellant Matthews for a rehearing was denied April 29, 1964.