Event is free. The Village at Pacific Highlands Ranch in Carmel Valley hosts this weekly free concert featuring a diverse lineup of musicians and vocalists through Aug. The show is from 6 to 8 p. This Pride celebration offers two days of entertainment, including a drag brunch and show, craft cocktail and beer garden, food trucks, dance party with DJs, and a Ferris wheel. It happens at 2 p. The free event is from 6 to 7 p.
The track is back! The season runs Thursdays through Sundays through Sept. Showing the tango on stage will be professional dancers Carolina Jaurena and Juan Allesandrini. Tango Society happens in-person at 7 p. Doors open at p. Shows at 7 p. Get ready for some reggae at Belly Up! It starts at 3 p. The newly constructed House of Peru will have a soft opening with a ribbon cutting ceremony and small celebration. House of Peru is one of a handful of new international cottages slated to open this summer.
It happens at 9 a. Oceanside Museum of Art opens two new exhibitions this weekend. Death qualification does not violate the Sixth Amendment by undermining the functions of a jury as a cross-section of the community participating in the administration of justice.
Lockhart , supra , U. I do still object to my client being shackled in the court room for the reason he never caused any outbursts. I would object on those grounds. Howard in their eyes. But your objections are noted. Mar 28 Cal. In any event, assuming defendant was required to wear a stun belt during trial, we agree with 5 Defendant claims he was deprived of the rights to due process, equal protection, a fair and impartial trial, to testify in his own defense, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution.
Mar , supra , 28 Cal. The Mar court held that the requirements set out in People v. Duran 16 Cal. The court must make an independent determination based on facts, not rumor or innuendo, and must not merely rely on the judgment of jail or court security personnel.
Mar , at pp. Lomax 49 Cal. The trial court in Mar had failed to make a record demonstrating manifest need for a stun belt. The Mar court decided the error was prejudicial.
It is, of course, not unusual for a defendant, or any witness, to be nervous while testifying, but in view of the nature of a stun belt and the debilitating and humiliating consequences that such a belt can inflict, it is reasonable to believe that many if not most persons would experience an increase in anxiety if compelled to wear such a belt while testifying.
Watson 46 Cal. Here, the trial court erroneously failed to make the finding of manifest need required by Mar. Unlike Mar, defendant expressed no discomfort with a stun belt.
Defendant was not on trial for injuring a law enforcement officer, and there was no other indication of a plausible reason why he might be particularly nervous about a stun belt being activated.
Most significantly, at sentencing defendant made an extended statement to the court regarding his mental state during trial. He made no reference to a stun belt or its effects on his demeanor while testifying. Instead, defendant claimed his testimony had been affected by antipsychotic medication. My demeanor is also relevant to my confrontation rights. The side effects of antipsychotic drugs may alter demeanor in a way that will prejudice all facets of the defense.
The defendant must be able to provide needed information to his lawyer and to participate in the making of decisions on his own behalf. Howard throughout these proceedings has been that he was coherent and responsive, and in no way appeared to be impaired by virtue of any medication or anything else. Chapman v. California U. Defendant made a concerted effort to convince the trial court that his defense had been hampered by problems with his demeanor on the stand. If wearing a stun belt had affected him, he certainly would have informed the court of that circumstance.
Instead, he asserted only that medication had influenced him during his testimony. Neither the court, the prosecutor, nor defense counsel noted any problems with his demeanor, however.
Guilt Phase Issues 1. Admission of the Handgun Defense counsel objected to the admission of the. He identified the weapon recovered from the ivy as the one defendant was carrying. Defendant contends the court abused its discretion. Heard 31 Cal. Benavides 35 Cal. Garceau 6 Cal. The trial court has broad latitude in determining relevance. We review such a ruling for abuse of discretion. Benavides , supra , at p. It was found, concealed in shrubbery, near the crime scene and the apartments where defendant was seen on the night of the murder.
Hinton 37 Cal. Defendant complains that the court failed to weigh the prejudicial effect of the evidence against its probative value under Evidence Code section Zapien 4 Cal.
In such a circumstance, the evidence is unduly prejudicial because of the substantial likelihood the jury will use it for an illegitimate purpose. Sarasy 53 Cal. Doolin 45 Cal. The gun was relevant and highly probative evidence in this case, and not likely to provoke an emotional reaction from the jury.
Defense counsel did not argue that it was unduly inflammatory, as he did in connection with the autopsy photograph we discuss next. The court properly admitted the gun into evidence. Admission of an Autopsy Photograph As noted, defense counsel objected to the admission of an autopsy photograph. Counsel argued that the pathologist could describe and diagram the wounds without recourse to the picture. Yes, I agree, but it is certainly — as I look at it, it certainly raises passions in me.
Defendant claims this ruling was an abuse of discretion. Crittenden , supra , 9 Cal. Ramirez 39 Cal. We have reviewed the photograph in question and, unlike those properly admitted in Heard and Ramirez , it is not particularly gruesome. See Heard , at pp. Heard , at pp. The court did not err by admitting the photograph in this case. These claims fail. Johnson 26 Cal. Virginia U. Abilez [ ] 41 Cal. We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support an enhancement using the same standard we apply to a conviction.
Olguin 31 Cal. Thus, we presume every fact in support of the judgment the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence. Carrasco Cal. Wilson 44 Cal. Not long thereafter, two men confronted Sherry Collins as she began to get out of her car. A number of other eyewitnesses testified that defendant, or a person matching his description, was in the area shortly after the shooting. He was unsuccessful in his attempts to find someone to give him a ride, and was arrested not far from the scene of the crime.
His gun was recovered nearby. Some of the evidence was circumstantial, but it was nevertheless substantial. Stanley 10 Cal. Bean 46 Cal. Abilez , supra , 41 Cal. Jury Instructions a Felony-murder Instruction Defendant contends it was error to instruct the jury on first degree felony murder, when the indictment charged him only with second degree malice murder. It posits that section defines second degree murder and section defines first degree murder, so that an indictment charging murder under section permits a trial only on liability for second degree murder.
Defendant recognizes that we have rejected this claim many times, but asks us to reconsider it. We decline to do so. See, e. Bramit 46 Cal. Hawthorne 46 Cal. Defendant claims this was error.
However, such conduct is not sufficient by itself to prove guilt, and its weight and significance, if any, are matters for your determination. He does not, however, argue that the instruction was unsupported by the evidence. The instruction is not argumentative e. Page 44 Cal. Mungia 44 Cal. If you should find that the defendant did not make the statement you should reject it.
Evidence of an oral admission of the defendant should be viewed with caution. However, as the Attorney General points out, the instruction plainly applied to the critical testimony by Torrence that defendant and Funches spoke about committing a robbery. Frye 18 Cal. The jury was advised to make its own judgment on whether an admission was made, and if so was invited but not directed to consider it along with the rest of the evidence.
The identity of the person who is alleged to have committed the crime is not an element of the crime nor is it a degree of the crime. Such identity or degree of the crime may be established by an admission. Ledesma 39 Cal. Defendant was not prejudiced by the explanation that identity, unlike the elements of the charged crimes, may be established by an admission.
Penalty Phase Issues 1. You must determine what the facts are from the evidence received during the entire trial unless you are instructed otherwise. You must accept and follow the law that I shall state to you.
Disregard all other instructions given to you in other phases of this trial. Lewis 43 Cal. However, defendant fails to show that any instructional omission at the penalty phase was prejudicial. However, defendant conceded that he was convicted of and committed both prior crimes presented to the jury. There was no contrary evidence. Thus, the only issues governed by the reasonable doubt standard at the penalty phase were conclusively resolved, and there was no occasion for the jury to reevaluate them.
Cruz 44 Cal. Harris 43 Cal. Defendant mentions a number of other instructions that he claims the court should have given on its own motion. Nothing in the closing arguments of the parties suggested that the jurors were free to make a standardless assessment of the evidence. Nor did the jurors ask any questions or request clarification as to how to assess any of the penalty phase evidence.
Lewis , supra , 43 Cal. Carter 30 Cal. California [, supra ,] U. Lancaster 41 Cal. Any error was harmless under the federal standard as well. Other Instructional Claims Defendant raises a number of well-worn claims of penalty phase instructional error. He fails to persuade us to abandon our settled views on these issues. The court was not required to give an instruction on lingering doubt. Hartsch 49 Cal.
Rodrigues 8 Cal. Butler 46 Cal. Wilson 36 Cal. The trial court was not required to give supplemental pinpoint instructions on mitigation. Musselwhite 17 Cal.
Geier 41 Cal. The standard instructions given in this case were not defective for failing to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of aggravating factors, a preponderance of aggravating factors, or the propriety of the death penalty. Lomax , supra , 49 Cal. Parson [ ] 44 Cal.
Harris , supra , 43 Cal. Lindberg [ ] 45 Cal. Nor is review for intercase proportionality constitutionally compelled. Regarding his intercase proportionality claim, defendant contends his death sentence is manifestly disproportionate because Funches, who shot and killed Sherry Collins and wounded Officer Block, was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in a separate trial, after the jury was unable to reach a verdict 30 on the special circumstance.
Mincey [ ] 2 Cal. Riel 22 Cal. Taylor 47 Cal. Arias 13 Cal. Marshall 50 Cal. Harris U. McDermott 28 Cal. Bemore 22 Cal. Gamache 48 Cal. Bemore , supra , 22 Cal. Dyer 45 Cal. Posttrial Issues 1. Denial of Motion for New Trial On November 15, , after the jury had returned its penalty verdict but before sentencing, defendant filed a motion for a new trial.
The motion was based on declarations by defendant, two fellow inmates, and Funches. He was surprised to see Torrence, who said he had been taken into custody for driving with a suspended license. Torrence was seated directly behind defendant. Nevertheless, defendant had asked him to remember the conversation because he intended to tell his attorney about it, and James was willing to testify if called to do so. Brandon Michael Nunez was also on the bus.
In a declaration dated November 7, , he said he had overheard a conversation between defendant and another person, and that defendant had asked him to remember what was said. Defendant was not with him during the incident, and Funches did not remember ever meeting him before they were arrested.
Funches did not 33 remember how they arrived at the scene, but he said he had barely escaped being hit by a car. Funches thought he himself had shot the driver, but was not sure.
James had a string of arrests and convictions for weapons, theft, and assault offenses. Nunez had been convicted of making terrorist threats, based on an incident in February that involved substance abuse and a degree of mental disturbance. He had been evaluated by a psychiatrist in April , and was found competent at that time. The prosecution argued that the new evidence presented by defendant was merely impeaching and lacked credibility.
It noted that Torrence had been confronted by defendant in a custodial setting that may well have induced him to claim he had been forced to testify as he did. Funches had to say about this matter.
Given the strength of this evidence, the court concluded that a different result was not reasonably probable if the evidence proffered by the defense, which the court acknowledged was newly discovered, were presented to another jury. That the evidence, and not merely its materiality, be newly discovered; 2. That the evidence be not cumulative merely; 3. That it be such as to render a different result probable on a retrial of the cause; 4.
That the party could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced it at the trial; and 5. That these facts be shown by the best evidence of which the case admits. Delgado 5 Cal. The court, which was very familiar with Funches, found his declaration utterly lacking in credibility.
The court properly weighed the credibility of the proffered new footnote continued on next page 36 Defendant faults the court for not obtaining live testimony from the declarants. However, defense counsel made no attempt to produce those witnesses, and submitted his motion on the declarations alone. The exhibit options Black victims of racial injustice and police brutality.
The year-old former linebacker was shot and killed by two SDPD officers on July 24, , after DuBose fell asleep in an residence neighboring the one he was staying in along with his buddy Randy West, according to a story in the San Diego Union-Tribune last year that recounted the events leading up to and after his death.
The tenant of the residence Charles Flynn known as police then went outdoors along with his roommate, DuBose and West to speak issues over. According to some experiences, the incident was largely over by the time police obtained to the scene. The U-T reported that DuBose obtained away and ran up an alley the place officers tried to subdue him with nunchucks which he wrestled away from them.
Officers Timothy Keating and Robert Wills then opened fireplace taking pictures DuBose at the very least a dozen occasions, together with 5 or 6 occasions in the again — the precise variety of pictures fired differ by supply. The officers additionally claimed they feared for their lives once they opened fireplace. The taking pictures loss of life of DuBose by two white officers prompted outrage with demonstrations held in San Diego.
A report later that month by the FBI and U. Sydney Ethridge with the coalition for African American Organization spoke with News 8 in regards to the case on the time the lawsuit was filed saying they wished the FBI and Justice Department to do an impartial review of the taking pictures to ensure police acted inside correct police protocol once they shot the former NFL linebacker 12 occasions.
0コメント