Varnum

People v. Varnum

Good Law

1969 Cal. LEXIS 349·70 Cal. 2d 480·75 Cal. Rptr. 161·450 P.2d 553

Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 1969Crim. No. 12041California6,202 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Sullivan, J.

A jury found Thomas Varnum, John Jackson and Edward Jackson guilty of assault with intent to commit robbery against James H. Fields (Pen. Code, § 220 X 1 first degree murder of Norman Merrill (§§ 187, 189), kidnaping of Norman Merrill for the purpose of robbery (§ 209) and robbery of Norman Merrill (§211). The jury fixed Varnum’s punishment at death for both the murder and the kidnaping. 2 In People v. Varnum (1964) 61 Cal.2d 425 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 881 , 392 P.2d 961 ], we affirmed the judgment as to guilt and reversed as to penalty for error in argument by the prosecutor and instruction by the court of the type condemned by People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 388 P.2d 33 , 12 A.L.R.3d 810 ].

Thereafter, on habeas corpus, we recalled the remittitur and reversed the judgment in its entirety on the ground that defendant’s confessions had been admitted into evidence in violation of People v. Dorado (1965) 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ]. (In re Varnum (1965) 63 Cal.2d 629 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 769 , 408 P.2d 97 ].)

Upon retrial, defendant was again found guilty on all four counts charged. The jury fixed the penalty on the murder conviction at death and…

concurrence Opinion

Peters, J.

I concur. While I believe the procedures in California by which the death penalty is imposed are unconstitutional (see dissenting opinion of Tobriner, J. in In re Anderson and Saterfield, 69 Cal.2d 613 at p. 635 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 21 , 447 P.2d 117 ]), this court by a four-to-three majority in that case has decided otherwise, and as long as the majority opinion remains the law of California, I am bound by it. Solely under compulsion of the majority opinion in that case, I concur in this opinion.

Tobriner, J., and Kaus, J. pro tem., * concurred.

Assigned by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.

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.

Parties

THE PEOPLE, and
Plaintiff
THOMAS LAMAS VARNUM, and
Defendant

Judges

Peters
Sullivan

Cites (54)

61 Cal. 2d 425
60 Cal. 2d 631
62 Cal. 2d 338
63 Cal. 2d 629
66 Cal. 2d 808
390 U.S. 529
391 U.S. 510
65 Cal. 2d 719
63 Cal. 2d 805
61 Cal. 2d 137
60 Cal. 2d 105
58 Cal. 2d 458
58 Cal. 2d 70
65 Cal. 2d 795
63 Cal. 2d 443
47 Cal. Rptr. 1
63 Cal. 2d 659
62 Cal. 2d 889
52 Cal. 2d 636
56 Cal. 2d 720
57 Cal. 2d 788
57 Cal. 2d 711
57 Cal. 2d 135
56 Cal. 2d 773
58 Cal. 2d 535
372 U.S. 955
58 Cal. 2d 304
62 Cal. 2d 684
58 Cal. 2d 229
50 Cal. 2d 383
50 Cal. 2d 245
39 Cal. 2d 719
6 Cal. 2d 331
217 Cal. App. 2d 389
63 Cal. 2d 464
63 Cal. 2d 370
62 Cal. 2d 692
62 Cal. 2d 547
62 Cal. 2d 497
62 Cal. 2d 368
61 Cal. 2d 651
61 Cal. 2d 556
61 Cal. 2d 544
61 Cal. 2d 236
61 Cal. 2d 217
61 Cal. 2d 210
63 Cal. 2d 566
61 Cal. 2d 164
61 Cal. 2d 155
69 Cal. 2d 613
66 Cal. 2d 524
20 Cal. 2d 751
69 Cal. 2d 751
63 Cal. 2d 319