legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Miller CA4/3
A jury convicted Joseph Daniel Miller as charged of one count of transporting methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (id., § 11378), and one count of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (id., § 11364, subd. (a)). After Miller admitted the allegation of three prior prison convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), the trial court sentenced him to a total of four years six months in jail.
Miller contends the prosecutor committed error in closing argument by equating the beyond reasonable doubt standard with the jury’s experience and common sense and with simple reasonableness. Although a few statements in the prosecutor’s closing argument did misstate the law when viewed in isolation, we conclude there was no prosecutorial error because in the context of the entire argument and the jury instructions it was not reasonably likely the jury understood or applied the statements in an errone

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale