P. v. Hicks
Filed 3/30/06 P. v. Hicks CA3
Received for posting 5/3/06
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CORRELL HICKS, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | C047831 (Sup.Ct.No. 02F07512)
|
Following several incidents of domestic violence, defendant killed Jessica Smith by strangling her and stuffing a towel six inches down her throat. A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), with personal use of a deadly weapon, the towel (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
Sentenced to 25 years in prison, plus one year for the weapon enhancement, defendant appeals. He contends there is insufficient evidence to support the first degree murder conviction and the conviction should be reduced to manslaughter because he was acting under the heat of passion. He further contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the victim's 911 calls in violation of his confrontation rights.
We find no error and affirm the judgment. The evidence amply supports the verdict. Defendant's increasing violence and threats to kill his victim and the manner of the killing support the jury's finding of deliberation and premeditation. Introduction of the 911 calls did not violate defendant's confrontation rights because the calls were not testimonial. Further, defendant forfeited his confrontation rights by his wrongdoing; the reason he could not confront the declarant is because he killed her.
FACTS
Jessica Smith and defendant began dating in the fall of 2000. She became pregnant and their child was born August 31, 2001. Smith was attending nursing school and scheduled to graduate in May 2003.
By the spring of 2002, the relationship was troubled. Smith told her mother she was increasingly unhappy and she and defendant would not be together except for the child. During one phone call, while defendant was present, Smith told her mother about a fight. Defendant got angry and Smith told her mother he mouthed the words â€
