Parson

People v. Parson

Good Law
2008 Cal. LEXIS 8243·44 Cal. 4th 332·79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 269·187 P.3d 1
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 10, 2008S056765California32,892 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Baxter, J.

Defendant Richard Ray Parson was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), 1 one count of first degree robbery (§ 211), and one count of first degree burglary (§ 459). The jury found true the allegation that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of the murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)), as well as the special circumstances that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in robbery and burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). At a bench trial, the court found true five prior conviction and prior prison term allegations for purposes of sentence enhancement. At the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death. Appeal to this court is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)

As we explain below, we find no prejudicial error at the guilt or penalty phase of defendant’s trial. We therefore affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. Facts

A. The Guilt Phase

Theresa Schmiedt was a 59-year-old convalescent hospital nurse who lived by herself in an apartment complex in Sacramento, California. On the morning of January 2, 1994, she was found murdered in her living room. She had died from blunt…

Concurring Opinion

Kennard, J.

I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately to suggest a simpler ground on which to reject defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in failing to instruct on assault as a lesser included offense of robbery and/or burglary. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 348-351.)

The purpose of instructing on lesser offenses is to provide the jury with verdict options that are consistent with the evidence presented at trial. “Just as the People have no legitimate interest in obtaining a conviction of a greater offense than that established by the evidence, a defendant has no right to an acquittal when that evidence is sufficient to establish a lesser included offense.” (People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 716 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 518 P.2d 913 ]; accord, People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 155 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870 , 960 P.2d 1094 ].) Accordingly, a trial court must instruct on a lesser included offense “only when evidence exists that would justify a conviction on the lesser offense.” (People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 129 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 186 , 72 P.3d 1166 ].)

*373 Here, no instruction on assault was required because defendant did not merely assault victim Theresa…

Opinion

Defendant Richard Ray Parson was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), [1] one count of first degree robbery (§ 211), and one count of first degree burglary (§ 459). The jury found true the allegation that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of the murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)), as well as the special circumstances that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in robbery and burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). At a bench trial, the court found true five prior conviction and prior prison term allegations for purposes of sentence enhancement. At the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death. Appeal to this court is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)

As we explain below, we find no prejudicial error at the guilt or penalty phase of defendant's trial. We therefore affirm the judgment in its entirety.

Theresa Schmiedt was a 59-year-old convalescent hospital nurse who lived by herself in an apartment complex in Sacramento, California. On the morning of January 2, 1994, she was found murdered in her living room. She had died from blunt craniocerebral trauma caused by…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.