P. v. Valle CA2/4
Appellant Jonathan Francisco Valle appeals his conviction of second degree murder. Appellant contends: (1) the trial court improperly restricted his expert’s testimony with respect to the effect of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); (2) the trial court erred in giving CALCRIM No. 360 and in independently advising the jury midtrial that his expert’s testimony repeating statements appellant made during the diagnostic interview should not be considered for the truth of the matters asserted; and (3) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on self-defense. We find no error in any of the trial court’s actions and affirm.
Comments on P. v. Valle CA2/4