PEOPLE v. QUENTIN MAYO
Filed 6/14/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. QUENTIN MAYO, Defendant and Appellant. | B180282 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA259932) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed.
Sharon Fleming, under appointment by the California Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kyle S. Brodie and David E. Madeo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Story Continue from Part I ……..
- Omission of CALJIC No. 2.90's presumption-of-innocence admonition is not federal constitutional error
Relying on Taylor, supra, 436 U.S. 478, Mayo also argues the omission of CALJIC No. 2.90's presumption-of-innocence admonition violated his right to due process. In Taylor the United States Supreme Court held the trial court's denial of a requested presumption-of-innocence instruction deprived the defendant of a fair trial. In reaching its conclusion, the Court emphasized the People had repeatedly invited the jury (in its opening statement and closing argument) to draw inferences of the defendant's guilt from facts not in evidence and from the defendant's arrest and indictment. According to the Court, the People's â€
