You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In re Mathis

Citations: 70 Cal. 2d 467; 450 P.2d 290; 74 Cal. Rptr. 914; 1969 Cal. LEXIS 347Docket: Crim. No. 12040

Court: California Supreme Court; February 20, 1969; California; State Supreme Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Dovie Carl Mathis filed a habeas corpus application challenging his death sentence following a first-degree murder conviction. He argued that the trial court improperly excused potential jurors who were opposed to the death penalty, violating the precedent set in *Witherspoon v. Illinois*. During jury selection, approximately two dozen veniremen expressed conscientious objections to the death penalty and were dismissed without sufficient inquiry into their views. The court initially asked jurors whether they could serve fairly; those expressing any objection to capital punishment were immediately excused without deeper examination of their positions.

The court held that such a broad exclusion of jurors based on general objections to capital punishment does not comply with *Witherspoon*, which requires a distinction between jurors who would categorically oppose the death penalty and those who could potentially set aside their views in favor of their duty as jurors. As a result, the court determined that Mathis's death sentence could not be upheld due to the improper jury selection process.

Other claims raised by Mathis were deemed moot based on prior rulings in *In re Anderson*. The court granted the writ concerning the penalty trial, recalled the remittitur in *People v. Mathis*, and reversed the death sentence while affirming all other aspects of the judgment. Justice McComb dissented, expressing the opinion that the writ should be denied and the judgment affirmed in full.