Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Meitzenheimier

P. v. Meitzenheimier

Filed 2/22/07 P. v. Meitzenheimier CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

CLAUDE MEITZENHEMIER,

Defendant and Appellant.

F049677

(Super. Ct. No. BF111634)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Clarence Westra, Jr., Judge.

Stephen Temko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Stanley Cross, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Lloyd G. Carter, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appellant Claude Meitzenhemier appeals his conviction on drug and weapons charges claiming that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had actual or constructive possession of the drugs or weapons and (2) the trial court had a sua sponte duty to clarify the jury instruction on constructive possession by providing the jury with a definition of the term â€

Description	Appellant appeals his conviction on drug and weapons charges claiming that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had actual or constructive possession of the drugs or weapons and (2) the trial court had a sua sponte duty to clarify the jury instruction on constructive possession by providing the jury with a definition of the term "control." Court conclude that the evidence presented provided an adequate basis for the jury to infer that appellant had possession of the drugs and weapons that were locked in two safes inside a locked bedroom of the apartment where appellant was arrested. Also, the jury instructions did not use the term "control" in a technical sense peculiar to the law. Therefore, the trial court had no sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the meaning of "control." Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.