P. v. Mendoza CA4/3
Daniel Mendoza challenges his conviction for second degree robbery based on evidence he stole items from a grocery store. He contends the trial court erroneously allowed the People to present an incomplete version of his response when asked by a store employee if he had a receipt. Mendoza also claims the court committed instructional error by adding a duplicative force or fear instruction to the robbery count. We disagree with each contention, and affirm the judgment of conviction.
Comments on P. v. Mendoza CA4/3