P. v. Hernandez
Filed 5/16/06 P. v. Hernandez CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIO CHACON HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B183394 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA051738) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. James Brandlin, Judge. Affirmed.
Mark L. Christiansen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell and Erika D. Jackson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
A jury found defendant and appellant Mario Chacon Hernandez guilty of second degree murder of his wife, Gabrielle Hernandez, in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of 15 years to life.
In this timely appeal from the judgment, defendant makes the following contentions: (1) the trial court committed reversible error in denying jury instructions requested by the defense; (2) the trial court failed to instruct that voluntary manslaughter may be committed in the absence of an intent to kill; (3) there was a sua sponte duty to instruct on involuntary manslaughter; (4) the prosecutor made a prejudicial misstatement of the law in argument which the trial court did not correct in response to defendant's objection; (5) the instructions failed to inform the jury that defendant's out-of-court statements should be viewed with caution; and (6) defendant invoked his right to counsel and his statement should have been ruled inadmissible.
FACTS
A. Prosecution Evidence
1. Events Prior to the Killing of Gabrielle[1] on February 23 or 24, 2004[2]
Defendant went to El Salvador in December 2003. Defendant returned to the United States on January 16, 2004, only to find that Gabrielle and their daughter, Gabriela, had moved to a different apartment without telling him. Late in January, Gabriela had a conversation with defendant in which defendant asked if his wife was going to reconcile with him. Gabriela told defendant that Gabrielle was not going back to him. Defendant said, â€
