People v. Anderson
California Supreme Court
51 Cal.4th 989, 252 P.3d 968 (2011)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Paul Anderson (defendant) was a methamphetamine addict who entered an apartment carport with the intent of stealing a car. Anderson successfully entered Pamela Thompson’s car, started it, and attempted to drive out of the carport, but because the carport’s gate did not open automatically, Anderson backed into a spot to wait for an entering car to trigger the gate to open. Thompson returned to the carport, discovered her car had been stolen, and walked around attempting to find it. After an entering car came through the gate into the carport, Anderson accelerated toward the gate in an attempt to get through the gate before it closed again. Thompson was walking in front of the gate as Anderson drove through it, and he struck and killed her. Anderson claimed that hitting her was an accident and that he had not intended to hit, injure, or frighten her. Anderson was charged and convicted of first-degree felony murder based on robbery, robbery, and receipt of stolen property. Anderson appealed, alleging that the trial court had erred by failing to issue a sua sponte instruction to the jury on a theory of accident as a defense to robbery. The court of appeal sustained Anderson’s assertion, and the prosecution appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Werdegar, J.)
Concurrence (Kennard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
