Pike

This is an automatic appeal from the death sentence imposed by the jury on a retrial of the penalty issue.

Conviction of murder in the first degree and robbery was affirmed by this court in 1962 (People v. Pike, 58 Cal.2d 70 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 664 , 372 P.2d 656 ]; cert.den. 371 U.S. 941 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 277 , 84 S.Ct. 324 ]). In 1967 in habeas corpus proceedings (In re Pike, 66 Cal.2d 170 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 424 P.2d 724 ]). the case was remanded for retrial on the penalty phase in the light of our decision in People v. Morse, 60 Cal.2d 631 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 388 P.2d 33 , 12 A.L.R.3d 810 ], as to prejudicial comments and instructions on possible *600 future action by the judge, the adult authority or the Governor in modifying sentence. Judgment was affirmed in all' other respects.

Facts: Pike was in the course of robbing a store on December 8, 196.0, when Police Officer Kent entered to purchase a battery. Pike ordered him at gun point to walk around a table and as Kent did so he was shot and mortally wounded by Pike. Pike was apprehended by another officer when he ran out of the store and fired at his captors. At the penalty retrial the People introduced-testimony as to prior…

I dissent.

The majority opinion states one of the questions involved in this case as follows: “Was it prejudicial error to require def ense counsel to supply names and addresses and expected-testimony óf defense' 'witnesses ? ’ ’ The answer given by the majority was “No,” and'the reasons advanced to support such a startling doctrine were “This information would, necessarily be disclosed at the trial and the witnesses would be subject to cross-examination. Jones v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.2d 56 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 879 , 372 P.2d 919 , 96 A.L.R.2d 1213 ], permits the People to obtain discovery in advance of trial. Discovery enables the prosecution to perform its trial function more effectively. Disclosing this information does not interfere,, with the defendant’s right of privacy, freedom from self-incrimination, or the lawyer-client relationship. Absent the *610 privileges afforded by law, the defendant has no valid interest in denying the prosecution access to evidence that can throw light on the issues. ’ ’

This statement of the prosecution’s right to pretrial discov.ery is far too broad, is not supported by Jones , and demonstrates a callous disregard of a defendant’s…