People v. Clark

A jury found defendants guilty of the first degree murder of Roberto Jordan, and of the first degree robbery of Robert Crosley. Coulverson and Davis submitted the question of penalty to the court, and were sentenced to life imprisonment. 1 The penalty issue as to Clark was tried before the jury which determined that he should suffer death. Motions for new trial on behalf of all defendants were made *874 and denied. Clark made a motion to reduce the penalty, which was also denied.

Clark’s appeal from the judgment imposing the death penalty (Crim. 7610) is automatic (Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b)). With it have been joined the appeals which Coulverson and Davis took from their convictions (Crim. 7615 and 7616), as well as the appeal taken by Davis from the judgment in regard to the prior offense mentioned in footnote 1 (Crim. 7617).

Appeal Grim. 7617 may be disposed of summarily. Although Davis presents no arguments in reference to this appeal, it appears that the sentence was imposed to run concurrently with that imposed in Grim. 7616. Inasmuch as the proceedings in Crim. 7616 must be dismissed for reasons hereafter set forth, Crim. 7617 must be remanded for imposition of…

I concur in the reversal of the judgments of conviction of defendants Coulverson and Davis based upon the application of section 4y>, article VI, of the California Constitution. (See concurring opinion in People v. Stewart, ante, pp. 571, 582 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ].)

I dissent from the instructions to dismiss the proceedings (Crim. 7615, Coulverson; and Crim. 7616, Davis), as I believe the granting of the continuances complained of to have been within the sound discretion of the trial judge.

I dissent from the reversal of the judgment of conviction of defendant Clark because under the application of section 4y2, article VI, of the California Constitution after examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, in my opinion it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant Clark would have been reached in the absence of the errors of which defendant complains. (People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) Here, there were eyewitnesses to the armed robbery and to the cold-blooded killing of one of the victims, who had done absolutely nothing to cause defendant Clark to shoot him. The gun had a hair trigger which could be fired…