Pages

Friday, March 12, 2021

Why a Vastly More Conservative California Cleaned Most of the California Supreme Court in One Retention Vote

 One of many of their decisions showing what liberal Democrats do to law.  People v. Caudillo (Cal. 1978):

As charged in a six-count information, a jury found defendant Daniel Caudillo guilty of the crimes of kidnaping (Pen. Code, § 207), forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. 2), sodomy (Pen. Code, § 286), oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a), first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The jury also found that defendant was armed with a deadly weapon, to wit, a knife, during the commission of each of these offenses (Pen. Code, § 12022). In finding defendant guilty of first degree burglary the jury also found (pursuant to Pen. Code, § 461) that in the course of the commission of this offense, defendant, with the intent to do so, inflicted [21 Cal. 3d 567] great bodily injury upon Maria -- the victim of each of the offenses charged against defendant. fn. 1...

Defendant appeals from the judgment. His contentions all relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment and findings. He first claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of any offense, a claim patently without merit. He also contends, and we agree, that the evidence adduced below of the movement of the victim was not of sufficient proportions to support the kidnaping conviction. Defendant makes a third contention, with which we agree -- that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that, in the course of commission of the burglary, with intent to do so, he inflicted great bodily injury upon Maria, the occupant of the burglarized premises. We modify the judgment accordingly. [emphasis added]

The rest of the details are to feminists (and all other decent persons) horrifying.

1 comment:

  1. It was said at the time that Rose Bird could find reversible error in anything. Her appointment as chief Justice revealed the problems with elevating a lawyer to the highest judicial office in the state in one fell swoop. In the nineties in Santa Monica we had a lawyer who specialized in representing tenants appointed to the Superior Court. The lawyers who represented the apartment owners all thought to themselves that they were in for it with such a partisan lawyer as a judge.
    I need to think about what his name was, but he turned out to be amazingly fair as a judge.

    ReplyDelete