P. v. Lang
A jury found appellant Bindhu Madhava Lang guilty of multiple offenses, most of them sexual offenses committed against two underage minors. He was sentenced to a term of 27 years to life in state prison for these offenses. (See Pen. Code,[1] 136.1, subd. (b)(1), 261, subd. (a)(2), 288a, subd. (c)(1), (2); former 288, subds. (a)(1), (c)(1) [as amended by Stats. 1998, ch. 925, 2].)[2] On appeal, Lang contends that (1) the trial court erred by permitting the jury to render a verdict although several jurors had not heard all the evidence; (2) prosecutorial misconduct occurred; (3) the trial court should not have allowed a prosecution witness to remain in court as a support person during the testimony of one of the victims; (4) the trial court committed instructional error; and (5) the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony about Langs prior arrest in violation of a court order and by so doing, jeopardized his right to a fair trial. He also urges us to find that (6) his motion for new trial should have been granted and (7) an unauthorized aspect of his sentence must be vacated. Court order that the abstract of judgment be corrected, but otherwise affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Lang