P. v. Lozada
Appellant Mark Anthony Lozada was placed on felony probation after he was tried before a jury and convicted of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).)[1]He contends the judgment must be reversed because (1) the testimony of the victim and the only other eyewitness was tainted by an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure; (2) the court committed prejudicial error when it gave a flight instruction over his objection and declined to give an absence of flight instruction at his request; and (3) his motion for a new trial on the grounds of suggestive identification procedures and insufficient evidence should have been granted. Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Lozada