P. v. Douglas CA3
Defendant Stuart Gorden Douglas appeals his convictions for attempted carjacking and making criminal threats after he pulled a gun on repossession agents attempting to repossess his recreational vehicle. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support his carjacking conviction. The People properly concede this claim. Defendant also claims the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct the jury on the legal definition of “permanent residency” as related to a recreational vehicle. This issue is moot in view of our reversal of the carjacking charge.
Comments on P. v. Douglas CA3