legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Pippin
Defendant admitted shooting his former girlfriend and her new boyfriend as they stood on the porch of her grandparents' house. Rejecting his defense that the killing was manslaughter, not murder, the jury convicted him of first degree murder. On appeal, defendant contends: 1) the trial court abused its discretion by failing to excuse a juror who, during closing argument, expressed his confusion about the law in a letter to the court; 2) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by misstating the law during closing argument; 3) the court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte that to find defendant guilty of shooting at an occupied building (Pen. Code, S 246), he must have fired in the direction of an inhabited dwelling house with knowledge that his act would probably result in harm to each of the named victims; and 4) there is insufficient evidence to support the special circumstance that defendant was lying in wait. Court agree with defendant's last contention. The special circumstance finding is reversed, the parole revocation fine is stricken, and in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

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
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale