RICHARD LACY LETNER and
CHRISTOPHER ALLAN TOBIN
Filed 7/29/10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE PEOPLE, )
)
Plaintiff
and Respondent, )
) S015384
v. )
)
RICHARD LACY LETNER and )
CHRISTOPHER
ALLAN TOBIN, )
) Tulare
County
Defendants
and Appellants. ) Super.
Ct. No. 26592
__________________________________ )
Story continued from part III…..
Despite Letner's speculation to
the contrary, there is no evidence in the record that any of the prospective
jurors were able to see his leg brace.
Indeed, the trial court, during record settlement proceedings, found
that the leg brace was not visible to the prospective jurors. In addition, Letner
was restrained on the day prior to that on which the jury was empanelled, and
it is unclear how many, if any, of the jurors who ultimately served on the jury
would have seen the brace that day.
Letner contends, however, that under the high court's
decision in Deck v. Missouri (2005)
544 U.S. 622,
respondent must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the prospective jurors did
does not support his contention. In that
case, the high court observed that the record â€
| Description | Defendants Richard Lacy Letner and Christopher Allan Tobin were convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187),[1] burglary (§ 459), robbery (§§ 211, 212.5), attempted rape (§§ 664, 261, subd. (2)), and theft of an automobile (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), arising from the murder of Ivon Pontbriant in her home in Visalia, California on March 1, 1988. As to each defendant, the jury found true three special circumstance allegations -- that the murder was committed in the course of the burglary, attempted rape, and robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A), (C), (G)) -- and returned a verdict of death. The trial court, having denied defendants' motions for new trial and the automatic applications to modify the verdicts (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), sentenced defendants to death and to consecutive prison terms of six years eight months for the noncapital offenses. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment as to each defendant in its entirety. |
| Rating |
