Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. MacManus

P. v. MacManus

Filed 1/17/07 P. v. MacManus CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

THOMAS A. MacMANUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

G035944

(Super. Ct. No. 04SF1121)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Patrick Donahue, Judge. Affirmed.

David Blair-Loy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Koch and James D. Dutton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Thomas A. MacManus appeals from his conviction for stalking and making criminal threats against his estranged wife, Anne MacManus. (Pen. Code, §§ 422 & 646.9, subd. (b).) The prosecution introduced evidence of prior incidents of domestic violence by MacManus to establish Anne was reasonably in fear for her safety. During trial, the defense learned for the first time a police officer involved in investigating one of those prior incidents may have made false statements in an application for an emergency protective order he obtained on Anne's behalf two years earlier. Although that officer was not called as a witness, MacManus sought a continuance of the trial to pursue Pitchess[1] discovery of the personnel files of the officer in question and another officer who did testify about the prior incident. On appeal, MacManus contends the trial court erred by denying the continuance. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

FACTS

MacManus and Anne were married for 18 years and had a history of domestic violence. In March 2003, in Orange County Superior Court case No. 02SF0660, MacManus pled guilty to felony stalking, felony domestic violence, violating a protective order, and attempting to dissuade a witness, and was placed on probation.[2] MacManus continued to contact Anne despite the restraining order, and in April 2003, she let him move back in with her because she believed she was safer from him if he was living with her. The restraining order was modified from â€

Description	Appellant appeals from his conviction for stalking and making criminal threats against his estranged wife, Anne MacManus. (Pen. Code, SS 422 and 646.9, subd. (b).) The prosecution introduced evidence of prior incidents of domestic violence by MacManus to establish Anne was reasonably in fear for her safety. During trial, the defense learned for the first time a police officer involved in investigating one of those prior incidents may have made false statements in an application for an emergency protective order he obtained on Anne's behalf two years earlier. Although that officer was not called as a witness, MacManus sought a continuance of the trial to pursue Pitchess discovery of the personnel files of the officer in question and another officer who did testify about the prior incident. On appeal, MacManus contends the trial court erred by denying the continuance. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.