Fear Not Law Articles: PEOPLE v. LEDESMA PART-VI

PEOPLE v. LEDESMA

Filed 8/17/06

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, )

)

Plaintiff and Respondent, )

) S014394

v. )

)

FERMIN RODRIGUEZ LEDESMA, )

) Santa Clara County

Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 72102

_______________________________________ )

Continue from Part V â€¦â€¦â€¦

M. Sufficiency of Evidence of First Degree Murder

Defendant contends his murder conviction must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to prove malice or deliberation and premeditation. He argues the evidence was insufficient because the prosecution provided no response to the testimony of the defense experts that, due to the effect on his brain of PCP use, defendant lacked the capacity to form these mental states. He contends that the testimony of the prosecution expert Dr. Coleman that the requisite mental state could be inferred from defendant's acts was insufficient to rebut the testimony of the defense experts.

In resolving such a claim, a reviewing court must determine â€

Description	Where defendant was accused of murdering victim to keep him from testifying about previous robbery and of robbing victim again at time of murder. The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of theft regarding the second robbery where there was substantial evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the intent to steal from the victim was not formed until after the murder, making the offense theft rather than robbery. California's practice of charging by information after a preliminary hearing does not violate the federal Constitution, even in capital cases.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.