PLG103 - People v

.docx

School

Eastern Gateway Community College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

103

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

4

Uploaded by BarristerFlower10931 on coursehero.com

People v. Thomas,   25 Cal. 2d 880, (1945) Holding The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court of Solano County convicting the defendant of first-degree murder and an order denying the defendant’s motion for new trial. The court contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish the homicide as murder of the first degree and that the trial court erred to the prejudice of the defendant in instructing the jury as to the elements of the two degrees of murder and the burden of proof. People v. Thomas , 25 Cal. 2d 880, at 908. Procedural History In 1943, The People of the State of California (plaintiff) brought an action in the Superior Court of Solano County charging C. T. Thomas (defendant) with murder in the first-degree. Thomas , 25 Cal. 2d 880. The defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder imposing the death penalty. February 7, 1945, Appeal was automatically taken under California Penal Code § 1239 in the Supreme Court of California for a judgment imposing the death penalty for first-degree murder. Cal. Penal Code §1239 (2020); Thomas , 25 Cal. 2d 880. The Supreme Court of California reversed the conviction of guilty of first-degree murder and denying the order for defendant’s motion for new trial. Facts On the night of October 23, 1943, C. T. Thomas shot and killed his significant other Bernice Owsley. On the night of the shooting according to the defendant’s testimony, Bernice
had been "running around" and "cheating on him" so he pretended to go to work but instead "laid in wait to catch her." When the defendant returned to his home and found Bernice dressed to go out, he said "I just got mad and grabbed my pistol." The defendant pushed Bernice out the front door and down the steps. Bernice got up and began to run with the defendant pursuing. Witness testimony stated they could hear Bernice pleading, “Please don't kill me, I haven't done anything” while being chased by Thomas. The defendant admitted that during his pursuit he fired his .32 caliber pistol at Bernice. The pistol was fired five times, four of which stuck Bernice, which was corroborated by the   autopsy findings of eight puncture wounds in her body. These wounds were the points of entry and exit of the four bullets. According to the testimony of the autopsy surgeon, at least two of the wounds were in vital areas. After the shooting Thomas admitted that Bernice had been unfaithful before and he had "planned to do this before." Issues Did Thomas act deliberately with premeditation, or did he act in the heat of passion with the intent to kill Bernice? Did the trial court properly instruct the jury relative to the elements of the two degrees of murder and the burden of proof? Rules of Law A search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment ordinarily is unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Chandler v. Miller , 520 U.S. 305. However, the Supreme Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a highway checkpoint to intercept illegal aliens, United States   v.   Martinez-Fuerte ,  428 U. S. 543, and at sobriety checkpoints intended to remove drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police   v.   Sitz ,  496 U. S.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help