Keeler v. Superior Court

As you read Keeler, consider the following questions:

1. Statutory analysis: What crime was Keeler charged with? What are the elements of that crime? (Pay careful attention to the statutory definition of murder in California Penal Code § 187 as it existed in 1970.)
2. What did Keeler do? What harm did he cause?
3. What is the procedural posture of this case?
4. What is the court’s holding? How does the majority interpret the key provision in the California Penal Code § 187? What is the basis for the majority’s interpretation?
5. How did the dissent interpret § 187? Why did the court reject the dissent’s argument?
6. Do you think Keeler was aware of the language of § 187? Do you think Keeler ever read Coke or Blackstone? Does that matter?
7. Do you agree with the dissent’s view that words in a statute “need not be frozen in place as of any particular time, but must be fairly and reasonably interpreted by this court to promote justice and to carry out the evident purposes of the Legislature . . .?”
8. How would you answer the rhetorical question posed at the very end of the dissent? Do you think Keeler was fairly punished for his conduct? Does that matter?
9. What does the Constitution say about the principle of legality?