P. v. James CA4/12
On appeal, James argues that the trial court erred by (1) sustaining certain evidentiary objections, (2) not allowing James to present evidence that he suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to demonstrate the objective reasonableness element of his self-defense claim, and (3) allowing a law enforcement officer to opine that one of the victim’s friends was not involved in the shooting. James further argues that the prosecutor’s question eliciting the law enforcement officer’s opinion constituted misconduct. James contends that these errors were cumulatively prejudicial. We conclude that James has not shown prejudicial error, and we therefore affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. James CA4/12