P. v. Porter
Filed 5/17/06 P. v. Porter 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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, v. KENTHY KYLE PORTER, Defendant and Appellant. | B179711 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA074605) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Philip H. Hickok, Judge. Affirmed.
Jeralyn B. Keller, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Rama R. Maline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________
Kenthy Kyle Porter (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).)[1] The trial court sentenced him to a term of 15 years to life in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the trial court's rulings on adoptive admissions violated due process and amounted to Doyle error (Doyle v. Ohio (1976) 426 U.S. 610 (Doyle)); (2) permitting the prosecutor to use a lengthy, detailed narrative as the predicate for the adoptive admission violates due process; (3) the trial court should have exercised its discretion to exclude the codefendant's statements from evidence pursuant to Evidence Code section 352; (4) the jury instruction, CALJIC No. 2.71.5, as modified, improperly invited the jury to rely on defendant's silence to find guilt; (5) the decision in Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 (Crawford) precluded the prosecution from using the codefendant's extrajudicial statements to the police as the predicate for an adoptive admission; and (6) permitting the prosecution to prove an adoptive admission irreparably hindered his right to present a defense.
FACTS
Defendant was charged in the information with murder along with two codefendants, a 19-year-old female, Shannon â€
