People v. Webster
California Supreme Court
54 Cal.3d 411, 814 P.2d 1273 (1991)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Larry Webster (defendant) lived with five other individuals in a riverside encampment. Webster was the de facto leader of the group. Three members of the group robbed a convenience store, and because the police continued to search for the perpetrators, Webster decided the next day that the group needed to leave town. Webster arranged to meet up with another homeless person, William Burke, that evening and use Burke’s car under the pretense of committing joint drug purchases or robberies. Webster in fact, however, devised a plan to lure Burke back to their camp and kill him so that they could steal his car and use it leave the area. The other members of the group cooperated with the plan. Once Webster and two other members of the group returned to camp with Burke, Webster stabbed and killed him. The group then returned the short distance to Burke’s parked car, loaded their belongings into it, and drove away They were later stopped for speeding, all arrested, and variously charged in connection with Burke’s death. Webster was charged and convicted of first-degree murder, under the special circumstances that the murder was committed while lying in wait and while engaged in the commission of a robbery. Webster was sentenced to death, granted an automatic appeal, and contended that the evidence did not support a conviction for robbery.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baxter, J.)
Concurrence
What to do next…
Here's why 780,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.