PEOPLE v.
Filed 8/12/10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE PEOPLE, )
)
Plaintiff and Respondent, )
) S081148
v. )
)
MARTIN CARL JENNINGS, )
) San Bernardino County
Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. FVI-04195
__________________________________ )
Story continued from part V…..
With these principles in mind, we conclude
that defendant did not have a constitutional or statutory right to be
personally present during the in-chambers discussion regarding how to respond
to the jury's question concerning whether â€
| Description | A San Bernardino County jury found defendant Martin Carl Jennings guilty of the first degree murder of his five-year-old son, Arthur Jennings. (Pen. Code, § 187.)[1] The jury further found true the special circumstance that the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture (§ 190.2, subd (a)(18)), but found not true the special circumstance that defendant intentionally killed Arthur by the administration of poison (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(19)). Following the penalty phase of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. After denying defendant's motion for a new trial and his application for modification of the judgment (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), the trial court sentenced defendant to death. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety. |
| Rating |
