P. v. Thomas
Cedric Maurice Thomas appeals his convictions for, among other charges, attempted murder, and three counts of assault with a firearm. The evidence adduced at trial showed appellant fired a gun at a van occupied by his estranged wife and his youngest son and daughter. He maintains there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for assault against his son because he claims there was no evidence that he was aware that his son was in the vehicle when he fired at it. Appellant also asserts that the court erred in answering questions submitted by the jury with respect to the assault charge involving his son. He further claims the court erred in admitting evidence of threats uttered against his estranged wife during his interview with a psychiatrist at the county jail. Finally, appellant claims the court committed prejudicial error in failing to give the cautionary instruction to the jury to view his out of court statements with caution. As we shall explain, sufficient evidence supported appellants convictions and the court did not abuse its discretion in handling questions from the jury. In addition, appellants statements to the psychiatrist were properly admitted and any error in failing to give the form cautionary instruction was harmless. Accordingly, Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Thomas