## Facts

- Robert Page Anderson was convicted of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted murder, and first-degree robbery arising from a 1965 pawnshop incident involving a fatal shooting and gunfire directed at police during a standoff.
- A jury initially fixed the penalty for the murder count at death, and the convictions were affirmed on direct review.
- After reversal of the original death sentence due to improper exclusion of jurors based on capital punishment views, a second penalty trial was held.
- On retrial limited to penalty, a new jury again imposed the death penalty; the trial court denied a motion for a new trial.
- The case reached the Supreme Court of California on automatic appeal in a capital case, with only the validity of the death penalty at issue.

## Issues

1. Whether capital punishment violates the California Constitution’s prohibition against “cruel or unusual punishment.”
2. Whether the state constitutional protection operates independently of federal Eighth Amendment analysis.
3. Whether the death penalty, judged by contemporary standards and its actual operation, can be constitutionally imposed in California.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California held that capital punishment is unconstitutional under article I, section 6 of the California Constitution as “cruel or unusual punishment.”
- The court set aside Anderson’s death sentence and modified the judgment to impose life imprisonment.
- The underlying convictions were left intact.
- The court resolved the case on state constitutional grounds and did not decide whether the death penalty also violates the federal Constitution.

## Legal Principles

- The California Constitution’s “cruel or unusual” clause is violated if a punishment is either cruel or unusual; it is not limited to punishments that are both.
- State constitutional protections against excessive punishment may provide broader limits than parallel federal protections and may be applied independently.
- Constitutionality of punishment is evaluated in light of contemporary standards of decency rather than fixed historical practices.
- A punishment may be unconstitutional if it is degrading to human dignity, including due to the suffering associated with prolonged confinement under sentence of death and the execution process.
- A punishment may be unconstitutional if administered in an arbitrary or irrational manner lacking a meaningful basis to distinguish cases where it is imposed from those where it is not.
- Extreme penalties that are not shown necessary to achieve legitimate penal purposes (such as deterrence or incapacitation) may fail state constitutional scrutiny, particularly when less severe alternatives can adequately protect society.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of California invalidated the death penalty under the state constitutional ban on cruel or unusual punishment and replaced Anderson’s death sentence with life imprisonment, while affirming the finality of his convictions.


People v. Anderson, 6 Cal. 3d 628 (Cal. 1972)