legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Rupp
On a 100-degree day in August 2004, defendant William Matthew Rupp rode a power mower to trim weeds on his property in rural Shasta County. The resulting fire destroyed over 10,000 acres and 80 homes. A jury convicted defendant of unlawfully and recklessly causing a fire of a structure or forest (count 1; Pen. Code, 452, subd. (c)) and of negligently using a lawnmower and causing a fire, a misdemeanor (count 2; Pub. Resources Code, 4435). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found the allegation true as to count 1 that defendant unlawfully and recklessly caused multiple structures to be burned ( 452.1, subd. (a)(4)). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate state prison term of four years, consisting of two years (the midterm) on count 1 plus two years (also the midterm) on the enhancement. The record is silent as to the courts disposition of count 2, if any. Defendant contends: (1) The trial court prejudicially misinstructed the jury as to the presumption of negligence. (2) The trial court erred reversibly by [g]iving an [i]mpromptu [a]mplification of the [r]easonable [d]oubt [i]nstruction[.] (3) The trial courts imposition of an additional term based on an enhancement not tried to the jury is unconstitutional in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S.[166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham). Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment. However, Court remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing as to count 2.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale