Attorney business

Defendant appealed his conviction in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), on one count of first degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, and three counts of robbery; the finding that defendant used a firearm during the commission of each offense; the findings of two special-circumstance allegations that defendant committed the murder while lying in wait and during the commission of a robbery; and his sentence to death.

Defendant ordered pizza, killed the delivery boy, and robbed the pizza parlor at gunpoint, tying two employees so that they had to stand on the tips of their toes or strangle. The attorney business found defendant guilty of one count of first degree murder, with two special-circumstance findings (that defendant committed the murder while lying in wait and during the commission of a robbery), two counts of attempted murder, and three counts of robbery; and fixed the punishment at death. The court affirmed, holding that the prosecution properly used its peremptory challenges, and that the special-circumstance findings were supported by the evidence, properly instructed to the jury, and sufficient to warrant death. The court found no prosecutorial misconduct, and held that any error in admitting defendant's incriminating statements was harmless. The court held admissible the gun defendant told of, and the videotape depicting the dead victim at the murder scene. The court held that the trial court need not read back to the jury defense counsel's closing argument, and that evidence of similar murders by defendant in another state, not yet prosecuted, was admissible during the penalty phase.

The court affirmed defendant's murder conviction and death sentence, finding no prosecutorial misconduct and holding that the evidence supported the conviction, including the special-circumstance findings. The court held that any error in admitting defendant's incriminating statements was harmless, and found no prejudicial error in the admission of evidence at either the guilt phase or the penalty phase.

A jury of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, convicted defendant of two counts of first degree murder and first degree residential robbery under Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 211, and found true multiple-murder and robbery-murder special circumstance allegations under Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3), (17). The jury fixed the penalty at death, and the trial court imposed that sentence. Appeal was automatic.

Defendant was convicted for stabbing to death his 79- and 74-year-old neighbors. The reviewing court's holdings included that the Fourth Amendment did not require suppression of evidence because defendant's consent to an examination of his shoes was not rendered involuntary, given that he was not detained. Officers requested him go to the police station as a potential witness without any threat or application of force, he waited in nonsecure areas while two relatives were also interviewed and then after his first interview, and when the officers returned to continue the interview an hour and a half later, they said he was not in custody and did not make accusations. The court also held that sufficient evidence established that defendant took the victims' property and had larcenous intent. The evidence included testimony that after the murder, the victims' children were unable to find their mother's wallet and that defendant killed the victims three days after receiving a loan from them and hours after spending all of his money at a bar. At the penalty phase, there was no error in admitting a 14-minute videotaped montage of still photographs, with background music excluded.

The court vacated a superfluous multiple-murder special-circumstance finding, but otherwise affirmed the guilt and penalty judgments in their entirety.

With extensive research and study, Simon passionately creates blogs on divergent topics. His writings are unique and utterly grasping owing to his dedication in researching for distinctive topics.