P. v. Saa
Defendant Jerome Eads appeals from his conviction of the first degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] 187, subd. (a)) of Mario Gutierrez, Sr. Eads contends (1) the trial court violated his rights to due process of law and to a jury trial by refusing his request for a separate jury; (2) or, in the alternative, his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move for severance; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could consider voluntary intoxication in determining whether he deliberated and premeditated or harbored express malice aforethought at the time of the killing. In addition, each defendant joins in the arguments of the other defendants to the extent such arguments accrue to their benefit. Court find no prejudicial error, and Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Saa