legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Wheeler
Defendant was drugged, bound, and garroted; his dead body was then thrown in the swimming pool in his backyard. The evidence, although circumstantial, indicated that his wife, defendant, either killed him or had him killed so that she could obtain the proceeds of his life insurance (and possibly also because she was having an affair).
A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 189), with a financial gain special circumstance (Pen. Code, 190.2, subd. (a)(1)). She was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. She appeals, contending the trial court erred by:
1. Improperly excluding evidence in reliance on the principles concerning evidence of third party culpability stated in People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826 (Hall).
2. Admitting evidence of prior bad acts.
3. Imposing a parole revocation restitution fine.
The People concede that the parole revocation restitution fine was erroneous. Court agree. Court modify the judgment accordingly. Otherwise, for the reasons stated below, Court reject defendants contentions, and Court affirm.

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