legal news


Register | Forgot Password

PEOPLE v. COOK III PART - III

PEOPLE v. COOK III PART - III
08:15:2006

PEOPLE v. COOK III



Filed 8/14/06





IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA





THE PEOPLE, )


)


Plaintiff and Respondent, )


) S042223


v. )


)


WALTER JOSEPH COOK III, )


) San Mateo County


Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. SC31145


___________ )


Continued from Part II …………..


Lastly, defendant complains of a question the trial court asked at the penalty phase of defendant's capital trial. After defendant's mother testified to problems defendant had as a teenager living in Germany, the court asked her whether school authorities there had contacted her after defendant fought with the high school coach. Because she responded that they had not, defendant contends the jury was given the impression that his mother had not been truthful in describing defendant's bad behavior.


Because defendant failed to object below to any of the trial court's questions, he has not preserved the issue for our review. (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 350.) Moreover, even if properly before us, the claim fails. The trial court's questions to the three witnesses were very few and neutrally phrased. The trial court, therefore, did not step outside its proper role of attempting to clarify witness testimony and trying to help the jury understand the evidence. Moreover, at the conclusion of both the guilt and penalty phases, the trial court instructed the jurors that they should not conclude from â€





Description Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying severance motion of defendant facing three murder charges. The were offenses of same class of crimes. None of the cases was especially weak because defendant admitted to shooting one of the victims and there was strong eyewitness evidence as to the other victims. None of the three killings, all of which were committed for seemingly trivial reasons and involved excessive force, was especially likely to inflame jury's passions and joining murder charge for beating victim to charges for shooting victims, which sufficed to support multiple-murder special circumstance, did not expand defendant's death penalty liability.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale