P. v. Kim

Filed 8/23/06 P. v. Kim CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

JOONG MYUNG KIM,

Defendant and Appellant.

B184843

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. GA054175)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Zaven V. Sinanian, Judge. Affirmed.

Edward H. Schulman, under appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Katz and Lauren E. Dana, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

After a jury trial, Joong Myung Kim (Kim) was convicted of second degree murder of his wife, Young Sun Cho (Cho). On appeal, Kim argues that his due process rights were compromised because the jury was not instructed to consider whether he failed to form the specific intent to kill due to his voluntary intoxication. Because the jury instructions urged were not warranted by the evidence, we find no error. The judgment is affirmed.

FACTS

Prosecution Evidence

In 1994, Kim married Cho in Korea. Cho's daughter from a prior relationship, Rina So (Rina), heard Kim and Cho argue about money and others things several times a week. While in Korea, there were times that Rina saw bruises on Cho's body. When she was 12 years old, Rina saw Kim slap Cho. On more than 30 occasions, Rina saw Kim raise his hand to Cho in a threatening manner. Eventually, Kim, Cho and Rina moved to the United States and Cho got a job as a nurse. Kim did not work much, and it was mainly Cho who made money. Kim and Cho continued to argue, often about money. Kim liked to go to Las Vegas and gamble. After a while, Cho opened her own home care service. Kim wanted Cho to pay to bring his family to the United States, which would have cost about $10,000 per person. They argued about Kim's demand, and he stated: â€

Description	After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of second degree murder of his wife. On appeal, appellant argues that his due process rights were compromised because the jury was not instructed to consider whether he failed to form the specific intent to kill due to his voluntary intoxication. Because the jury instructions urged were not warranted by the evidence, court find no error. The judgment is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.