P. v. Pegram
Appellant appeals from the order committing him to the Department of Mental Health for two years, based upon a jury’s determination that he is a sexually violent predator. Appellant contends that: (1) he did not receive an adequate number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors; (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on consciousness of guilt, pursuant to a modified version of CALJIC No. 2.03, based on false pretrial statements; and (3) the jury’s determination that he is an SVP is not supported by substantial evidence. Court affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Pegram