*1 July No. 14930. In [Crim. Bank. 1973.] PEOPLE,
THE Plaintiff and Respondent, HILL,
JOSHUA NICHOLAS Defendant and Appellant.
Counsel Roeschke, Joshua Nicholas and Donald F. under appoint- pro. per., Court, ment for Defendant and Supreme Appellant. General, James,
Evelle J. William E. Assistant Younger, Attorney Attorney General, Schwab, General, and Howard J. for Plaintiff Attorney Deputy and Respondent.
Opinion
THE COURT.
Defendant Joshua
Nicholas Hill was convicted of first de
murder,
murder,
assault with
gree
intent
to commit
degree
first
On the
robbery.
murder count
was fixed at death. The
penalty
judg
ment was affirmed.
v. Hill
prohibition 6.)1 Georgia (1972) And in Furman v. § 2726], the United Court ruled that States imposition Consti- in these circumstances contravened the federal death aside, must therefore be set it is
tution. As defendant’s death penalty.
*3
out of his second
to consider the claims of error
unnecessary
arising
trial.
At the
of this court defendant’s counsel reviewed the record
request
whether there existed
the
the trial in order to determine
of
of
guilt phase
(See
tenable
the
of
at this time.
guilt
for
grounds
attacking
judgment
859,
614,
People
(1966)
v. Ketchel
63 Cal.2d
866
409
Cal.Rptr.
[48
no addi-
advised
that he was “aware of
P.2d
counsel
us
Thereupon
on the issue of
which
tional
now
the
grounds
attacking
judgment
guilt
for
briefs has dis-
have not
been briefed.” Our examination of the
already
contention,
in a
brief
closed one
raised
defendant himself
by
supplemental
as an attack on the
filed in
which can be construed
propria persona,
wit,
of
evidence
at the second
that
guilt—to
developed
judgment
confession,
in
trial establishes that defendant’s
introduced
him
trial;
admitted
Illinois
the
was
Escobedo v.
1965
violation of
guilt
(1964)
977,
This contention
Defendant
rejected.
ample
must
opportu
when
relative to an Escobedo violation
to establish the circumstances
nity
subject
On
into evidence in the 1965 trial.
confession
offered
held that
the circumstances that were disclosed this court
the basis of
the confession
had
been
determined that
Escobedo
not
violated. We also
re-examine our conclusion
Now
would have us
was voluntary.
petitioner
we decline to
of new evidence. This
the Escobedo issue in the light
as to
63
itself,
(1965)
v. Polk
as well as in
in Ketchel
do. Although
443,
1,
641], we were not reluc
447-448
Cal.Rptr.
[47
Dorado,
Escobedo
of
and
tant to re-examine
of
in light
judgments
guilt
raise
had
no
to
defendant
had
opportunity
those were cases in which the
in which the
and on
judgment
issue at trial
the constitutional
appeal
United States
on certiorari
to review
by
of
remained subject
guilt
a
afforded
full
has been
it is otherwise. Defendant
Court. Here
issue,
27,
on this
the California Constitution
of
of
1For
effect
article I. section
138,
352,
349,
People Murphy (1972)
2
503
footnote
see
v.
8 Cal.3d
P.2d
on the
ruling
subject confession
previous appeal,
on the
2As we indicated on the
record,
(1966) 384 U.S.
appellate
Miranda v.
Arizona
basis
evidence
instant
applicable
is not
to the
The insofar provides judgment, is and as so modified life to a imprisonment ified provide affirmed. Unpersuaded of J., the correctness of
CLARK, Concurring. 880], but stare decisis and the authority doctrine of by compelled imperiled Georgia Furman *4 to life I concur in modification of this judgment imprisonment. McCOMB, J., I concur majority opin- Concurring Dissenting. ion, that, in my dissenting for the reasons opinion expressed except Anderson, (See Cal. I dissent from the modification judgment.
§27.)