P. v. Braxton
Following his conviction by jury verdict of attempted murder (Pen. Code, SS 187/664), appellant Michael Glenn Braxton made a timely oral motion for new trial on grounds of jury misconduct, which the trial court refused to hear. (People v. Braxton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 798, 814.) In his first appeal (A096083) he contended the refusal of his motion was error. He also asserted various evidentiary and instructional errors, which he had not claimed in his motion for new trial.
Court concluded the court's refusal to hear the motion for new trial was error, and that, under the peculiar facts of the refusal, appellant was entitled to a new trial. Court addressed the evidentiary issues, as they were likely to recur on a retrial. Court declined to address the claimed instructional errors as premature, because the evidence presented at retrial, as yet uncertain, would govern the appropriate instructions.
The Supreme Court granted the People's petition for review to address the issues related to the motion for new trial. (People v. Braxton, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 805.) It concluded the trial court erred in not hearing appellant's motion, but it reversed our judgment and directed us to remand the matter to the trial court for a hearing on appellant's motion for new trial on the ground of jury misconduct. (Id. at pp. 814, 820.) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, then rule 26(b)(2), now rule 8.272(b)(2), we issued a remittitur and sent the trial court our remittitur, a copy of the Supreme Court remittitur, and a file stamped copy of the Supreme Court opinion.
The trial court has now heard and denied appellant's motion for new trial, and he appeals the order of denial (A110446).
Subsequent to his appeal in A110446, appellant asked us to recall the remittitur in our original opinion in order to address the evidentiary and instructional claims of error, the resolution of which was not necessary for our conclusion in that opinion. He also asked that we consolidate the two appeals. Court granted his request.
Comments on P. v. Braxton