P. v. Noordman
Filed 8/17/06 P. v. Noordman CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KINZIE GENE NOORDMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | E038123 (Super.Ct.No. FRE 006600) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith, Judge. Affirmed.
Martha L. McGill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marvin E. Mizell and Pat Zaharopoulos, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendants Kinzie Gene Noordman (defendant) and Damien Matthew Guerrero (Damien), who is not a party to this appeal, were jointly tried with separate juries for the murder of Kelly Laurel Bullwinkle (Kelly). Defendant appeals from judgment entered following a jury conviction for first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)[1]). The jury also found true the enhancement allegation that in the commission of the murder, defendant personally and intentionally discharged a handgun (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). The jury rejected the lying-in-wait allegation. The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in prison for murder, plus 20 years for the gun enhancement.
Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the gun enhancement because Kelly was already dead when defendant shot her. Defendant also argues there was a reasonable probability the jury's murder verdict was based on the theory defendant fired the fatal shot and there was insufficient evidence of this. In addition, defendant claims the trial court committed instructional error by not giving sua sponte CALJIC No. 3.02 on aider and abettor liability under the â€
