People v. Garton
California Supreme Court
4 Cal. 5th 485, 412 P.3d 315 (2018)
- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
California resident Todd Jesse Garton (defendant) was charged with conspiracy to murder Dean Noyes, the husband of his codefendant, Lynn Noyes. Garton and Lynn had dated in high school before both married other people. In 1996, Garton told a friend that he was a paid assassin and discussed murdering Dean. They had discussions about the murder 50 to 100 times over the course of one to two years, and Garton’s friend agreed to help Garton commit the murder. In 1997, Garton told Lynn that Dean was cheating on her and that he knew people who could kill him. Lynn told Garton to kill Dean. Lynn and Dean lived in Oregon. Lynn sent Garton keys to Dean’s car and to their home so Garton could kill Dean there. Garton and two accomplices met several times in California to plan Dean’s murder. They also bought guns, handcuffs, and other tools to kidnap and murder Dean. They made a couple of trips to Oregon to kill Dean but were unsuccessful. During one trip, Lynn herself foiled the attempt by preventing Dean from parking in the garage where Garton intended to kill him. After a jury trial in Shasta County California, Garton was convicted of conspiracy to murder Dean, as well as of first-degree murder of his own wife and her fetus. He received a death sentence and appealed, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the charge that he conspired to murder Dean in Oregon.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Liu, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Chin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.