PEOPLE v. TATE
Filed 7/8/10
IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, )
)
Plaintiff
and Respondent, )
) S031641
v. )
)
GREGORY O. TATE, )
) Alameda
County
Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 93308
__________________________________ )
Story continued from part V…..
In
any event, it largely lacks merit.
Insofar as the prosecutor questioned why defendant, upon discovering
Sarah LaChapelle's body, did not promptly call the
police, the prosecutor was not casting suspicion upon defendant's silence during
a period after he had been arrested, and had heard and decided to exercise his
that if, as defendant now claimed, he innocently came upon the horrific murder
of his family's neighbor, it would have been natural to summon assistance
immediately. Such questions did not
violate Doyle, and were not improper.
When
the prosecutor went further, and asked whether defendant had told
trial, a defense objection on attorney-client privilege grounds was promptly
sustained. If incipient
question, it was thus nipped in the bud.
Defendant
also complains of the prosecutor's efforts to elicit the content of his
pretrial conversations with his counsel.
He asserts these efforts were invasions of his attorney-client
privilege, as well as improper attempts to insinuate that he and his counsel
colluded to produce â€
| Description | A jury found defendant Gregory O. Tate guilty of the first degree murder of Sarah LaChapelle. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189.)[1] The jury also found that defendant personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, a knife (§ 12022), and that robbery-murder and burglary-murder special circumstances were true (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). Defendant was sentenced to death. This appeal is automatic. Court will affirm the judgment in its entirety. |
| Rating |
