The court held that: (1) there was no error

Premium Photo | Judge wood hammer law judges background concept.

A jury in the Superior Court of San Diego County, California, convicted defendant of the first-degree murders of a husband and wife pursuant to Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189, as well as assault with a firearm under Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2). The jury returned a verdict of death for the murder of the wife. The trial court denied defendant’s motions for new trial and to modify the penalty verdict and sentenced him to death. Appeal was automatic.

The court held that: (1) there was no error in the denial of defendant’s pretrial motion seeking dismissal of the special circumstance allegations; (2) there was no error in the denial of defendant’s Pen. Code, § 1538.5, motion to suppress evidence discovered in a traffic stop of his codefendant’s car because there was probable cause to stop the car, and the officer was authorized to impound the car once neither occupant produced a valid driver’s license; (3)  ADA lawyer San Bernardino defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing concerning the admissibility of jailhouse informants’ statements; (5) the record disclosed race-neutral grounds for the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges; (6) admission of crime scene and autopsy photographs was not error; (7) there was no support for a voluntary manslaughter instruction; and (8) the prosecution’s failure to disclose a report prepared by its investigator was unintentional, and there was no violation of due process where materiality was not established, as defendant had shown only the possibility that he would have testified had the report been timely produced. Defendant’s attacks on the constitutionality of California’s death penalty statute lacked merit.

The court affirmed the judgment in its entirety.

Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession and illegal sale of marijuana entered by the Superior Court of Madera County (California).

Defendant was arrested and searched after being found in a co-defendant’s car with a known drug peddler that had been implicated in drug purchases made by an undercover officer from the co-defendant a few minutes earlier. The search of his person revealed money identical to that given to the co-defendant by the undercover officer, and a search of his apartment, conducted with his wife’s consent, revealed marijuana. Defendant represented himself and was convicted for unlawful possession and illegal sale of marijuana. On appeal, the court held that: 1) probable cause existed to support defendant’s arrest and subsequent search; 2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction; 3) defendant was not prejudiced by remarks of the court to the jury; and 4) defendant voluntarily waived his right to counsel because his dilatory tactic was sufficient from which to imply a waiver.

The court affirmed the judgment that convicted defendant.

Back To Top