People v. Ward

California Court of Appeal Mar 14, 1968 No. Crim. 12493Published

Before: Fourt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for first-degree murder, holding that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the defendant possessed the mental capacity to form the specific intent required for felony murder.

Issues

Whether the defendant possessed the mental capacity to form the specific intent required for first-degree murder despite claims of intoxication.
Whether the Wells-Gorshen rule regarding diminished capacity applies to a case involving the felony-murder rule.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The judge found (1) that defendant, despite his consumption of some alcohol prior to the murder, had the mental capacity to form the specific intent to kill, to deliberate and to premeditate”

“The Wells-Gorshen rule comes into being in a case other than one involving the felony-murder rule.”

“The appellant admitted by his plea of guilty every element of the crime and this is the equivalent of a conviction.”

FOURT, J.

—This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of murder.

In an information filed in Los Angeles on March 29, 1965, defendant was charged with murdering Susan Melody Payne on February 28, 1965. On April 1. 1965, defendant pleaded not guilty. On defendant’s motion he was examined pursuant to section 1871, Code of Civil Procedure, as to his mental status, alcoholic and nonalcoholic induced EEG, psychological and psychiatric testing by Doctor Miller. After many continuances granted at the request of defendant, on November 8, 1965, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty to murder and pleaded guilty to murder. The defendant personally and

[81]

all counsel stipulated to waive trial by jury as to the degree of the crime. Pursuant to the stipulation the judge was to consider among other things the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing, other testimony to be introduced by both sides, statement of defendant made to the arresting officers, report of Doctor Miller, testimony of Doctor Miller, and further the exhibits received in the preliminary hearing were to be received subject to the right to further objection. The court found that the statement of defendant to the arresting officer was freely and voluntarily made with full protection of all of his constitutional rights. At the further hearing photographs, coroner’s reports and sketches, a hotsheet, sweater, a glove, shoes, statement of defendant and other items were received into evidence. Additional hearings were held and the court determined the guilt to be in the first degree and defendant was sentenced to the state prison.

A timely notice of appeal was filed on December 20, 1965. The prosecution moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground, among other things, that there was a failure to comply with the provisions of section 1237.5, Penal Code. The motion to dismiss was granted by this court. The Supreme Court in

People

Ward,

66 Cal.2d 571 [58 Cal.Rptr. 313, 426 P.2d 881] held that the section in question did not apply to the facts in this case and denied the motion to dismiss the appeal.

People v. Ward

AI Brief

FOURT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief