People v. Bottger
California Court of Appeal
142 Cal. App.3d 974 (1983)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
John Bottger (defendant) was in a relationship with Martha, who was married to Billy. Bottger told Morris Wade that he wished Billy was dead and offered Wade $5,000 to kill Billy. Bottger then upped the offer to $20,000 to be payable from Billy’s life insurance once he was dead. Unbeknownst to Bottger, Wade was a law-enforcement informant. Wade reported Bottger’s solicitation offer to the authorities. Wade then introduced Walt Kubas, a California justice-department agent, to Bottger as an associate who could carry out the murder. Bottger reiterated his solicitation offer to Kubas. The three men traveled to Fresno, where Martha and Billy lived. Bottger purchased a map and wrote the address and directions for Billy’s house on it. Kubas and Bottger drove to the house and discussed how Kubas could enter the house, kill Billy, and make it look like the murder was committed during a burglary. Kubas convinced Bottger to sign a promissory note stating that he owed Kubas $20,000 for services rendered. Bottger was to call Kubas on the day planned for the murder to confirm that Martha was out of the house but failed to do so. When Kubas saw Bottger soon thereafter, Bottger said he had overslept and asked how everything had gone. Kubas replied that Billy was dead, and when Bottger smiled in reply he was arrested. Bottger was convicted of solicitation for murder. Bottger appealed, claiming that the instructions to the jury had been in error.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Woolpert, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.