P. v. Parlante
On appeal, defendant asserts (1) insufficient evidence supports his assault with a deadly weapon convictions, (2) the court erroneously instructed the jury on both the assault and stalking charges, (3) the court failed to instruct on simple assault as a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon, (4) the court erred in excluding certain experimental evidence concerning his vehicle’s rate of speed and stopping ability, (5) the court improperly lowered the burden of proof on the stalking charge by failing to give a unanimity instruction, and (6) that the alleged errors were cumulatively prejudicial. Defendant also claims the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to review certain police personnel files under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). We affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Parlante