";s:4:"text";s:21565:"at p. 68); and "the reviewing court cannot determine from the record on which theory the ensuing general verdict of guilt rested ...." (Id. Votes: George C.J., Mosk, Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin & Brown JJ. Considering the totality of this evidence, even in the light most favorable to the judgment below, I find it fails to "disclose[] substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (Dis. at pp. ), "To analyze the Green facts in terms of Griffin, ... a jury would be well equipped to analyze the evidence and determine whether the victim had been asported, and to determine the distance of the asportation. CitationMorales v. Portuondo, 154 F. Supp. But to focus solely on the foregoing remarks, stripped of their context, would be to leave our discussion incomplete. opn. "What do we know? Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Understandably so. of Richardson, J.). "That is simply additional evidence that what he was under the influence [of] was clearly PCP, and in order to get under the influence, he had to possess PCP Pretty simple process." Peoples v Wise Case Brief Peoples Department Stores Inc. (Trustee of) v. Wise, 2004 SCC 68 (CanLII), [2004] 3 SCR 461. by Robert Jones — Western University's Law Students' Association. 1, 609 P.2d 468] (Green) fn. That being the case, reversal was appropriate. (See Guiton, at pp. That's not the issue. 112, 718 P.2d 99], footnote 3, and People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 239 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 533, 973 P.2d 512]. He further maintains that charging him with and trying him for possessing PCP was improper given that the Legislature has passed a less severe law proscribing PCP use. In one sense "legal error" includes inadequacy of evidence—namely, when the phrase is used as a term of art to designate those mistakes that it is the business of judges (in jury cases) and of appellate courts to identify and correct. 62-63.) It accurately restated the law. 607, 484 P.2d 583]; People v. Sullivan (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 562, 565 [44 Cal.Rptr. FN 9. at 151, but as explained in the People’s opening brief, Peo. (See Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 4 The majority notes defendant refused to submit a sample of his urine. (Guiton, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. Sanchez v. Lagoudakis (After Remand), 458 Mich 704, 709; 581 NW2d 257 (1998). The trial court granted the prosecutor’s motion: I find good cause for the late amendment, in that, first, that these were convictions in more than one state; and second, it would appear that various names and aliases were used by the offender in connection with these convictions. [¶] ... You just take that law, apply it to the facts you found and you make your determination." (People v. Rubacalba, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. People v. McCabe Case Brief 1. Neither the parties nor the trial court had ever witnessed a closing argument read back to a jury, though defendant urged the court to comply with the jury's request and said he was prospectively objecting if it did not do so. 1241.) Accordingly, reversal is generally required in those instances "in which 'a particular theory of conviction ... is contrary to law,' or, phrased slightly differently, cases involving a 'legally inadequate theory' ... [including] a case where the inadequate theory 'fails to come within the statutory definition of the crime.' No proof that he even drove that van. fn. 1128.) (See People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1125-1126, 1128 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 365, 847 P.2d 45] (Guiton); Griffin v. United States (1991) 502 U.S. 46, 55, fn. When the woman took photos of the van and license plate, Morales became agitated and drove away. 2141, 2147, 57 L.Ed.2d 1]. Thus, even if the evidence were sufficient (see, ante, fn. at p. [But] I've got to be in control of it, unless, of course, someone is holding me down and force-feeding me this intoxicant; okay? Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. " He later told the jurors that they need not "unanimously agree that it was some PCP from this vial"—i.e., the vial found on the van's floor. We explained that though it may be true "that the Legislature, in other contexts, has often punished use of drugs less severely than possession thereof [citation], thus indicating some legislative intent to distinguish between use and possession of illegal drugs," so that "a rule that would allow a possession charge and conviction to be based solely on evidence of use might unduly blur the distinction between use and possession," as long as " '[t]he People introduced substantial evidence to satisfy each of the[] elements [of possession required under CALJIC. Specifically, he contends that the prosecutor's arguments misled the jury about the law governing PCP possession, in violation of state law and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Reversal is required when, as here, "the prosecution presents its case to the jury on alternate theories, some of which are ... legally incorrect" (Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 69); "[n]othing in the instructions ... disabused the jury of this [erroneous] notion" (id. at p. 1242 [finding all elements of LSD possession established by direct and circumstantial evidence notwithstanding loss or destruction of the drug by ingestion].) We "found [legal] error as to two of the three possible segments of asportation, ... [and] could not determine from the record whether the jury based its verdict on either of the 'legally insufficient segments of [the victim's] [25 Cal.4th 43] asportation....' " (Guiton, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1121, quoting Green, at p. (See People v. Palaschak (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1236.). FN 5. It does not extend to a substance containing contraband, even if not pure, if the substance is in a form and quantity that can be used. This situation differs qualitatively from a simple misstatement of a legal principle and thus invokes a different standard of review. And the nature of it. ), "The Griffin court thus drew a distinction between a mistake about the law, which is subject to the rule generally requiring reversal, and a mistake concerning the weight or the factual import of the evidence, which does not require reversal when another valid basis for conviction exists.... '... [25 Cal.4th 54] Jurors are not generally equipped to determine whether a particular theory of conviction submitted to them is contrary to law—whether, for example, the action in question is protected by the Constitution, is time barred, or fails to come within the statutory definition of the crime. 1125-1126.) We know he got [high on PCP] by being in possession of PCP. (Id. 5. (Italics added.) (Id. Telephone: 720-508-6000 . (Id. Stanford Law School - Robert Crown Law Library. Invoking the jurors' life experience, the prosecutor argued for the former interpretation. Certainly, evidence of being identifiably under the influence of a specific drug or other evidence of having introduced it into one's body tends to prove having knowingly, and hence unlawfully, possessed it. 3 Subdivision (e)(3)(A) of section 11055 of the Health and Safety Code lists PCP as being among such substances. Each of these elements may be established circumstantially. Furthermore, and particularly pertinent here, when the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion. View Sample Case Briefs for Mungia, Morales, and Flynn Cases.docx from COLLEGE 148 at DeVry University, Addison. After a recess for the parties to research the issue, the court called the jury back into court and, over defendant's prior objection, denied the request. The evidence suggested, and the prosecutor argued, that the asportation could be divided into three portions, including the "last 90 feet [25 Cal.4th 52] that defendant walked [the victim] to the spot where he killed her." And it is not. CITY OF CHICAGO, PETITIONER v. JESUS MORALES et al. The woman called 911. As I shall explain, this analysis applies, beyond cavil, to the facts before us and warrants reversal of defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance. fn. The "fatal flaw" in this reasoning, however, "is that it was simply not the theory on which the case was tried." March 31, 1988. Read Our Case Studies On People V. Kibbe Case Brief and other exceptional papers on every subject and topic college can throw at you. 6. "Where is the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Morales exercised control over that vial?". 14-15, none of the cases cited in support of that assertion involved a conflict based on defense counsel’s prior representation of a victim. (Ibid. People v. Beardsley. Very simple. (See Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 11 [98 S.Ct. 1. In his initial closing argument, the prosecutor said, "you're here to make one decision, and that is on November 3rd, 1995, was the defendant in possession of a controlled substance.... [¶] As you look at this evidence, certainly, the most compelling evidence is that the defendant was under the influence of PCP. Δ did not deny strangling his wife (Rachel), but claimed through his own testimony and through the testimony of a psychiatrist, Dr. Blinder, that he was provoked into killing her b/c of a sudden, uncontrollable rage so as to reduce the offense to one of voluntary manslaughter. It's a little hard to get yourself loaded if you're not aware of the presence of what you're getting yourself loaded on. 6; see People v. Bacigalupo (1991) 1 Cal.4th 103, 125 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 335, 820 P.2d 559], vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom. In sum, he told the jury to "go in and judge this evidence solely on the law." 67.) Cite as: People v. Morales, 98N042944, NYLJ 1202753005767, at *1 (Crim., NY, Decided March 7, 2016) CASE NAME. 97—1121. Justice Brown's dissent, which characterizes the prosecutor's argument as an "erroneous theory of guilt," maintains there was no need for defendant to object, because the prosecutor's erroneous theory "differs qualitatively from a simple misstatement of a legal principle." at pp. [25 Cal.4th 55], Significantly, the prosecutor never mentioned the elements of possession in his opening final argument. The defendant, Arcangel Morales, appeals from his conviction of manslaughter. In People v. Woodell, supra, 17 Cal.4th 448, the Supreme Court summarized the relevant law as follows: "Various sentencing statutes in California provide for longer prison sentences if the defendant has suffered one or more prior convictions of specified types. As did the prosecutor, the majority also fails to relate any of the circumstantial evidence it relies on to the elements of the charge. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID HANS MORALES, Defendant and Appellant. "[I]t should be noted that the jury, of course, could totally disregard all the arguments of counsel." At the same time, primary reliance on defendant's state of intoxication tends to undercut the argument he knew of the vial's presence. Facts: Morales was charged in two separate Informations before the RTC for possession and sale of shabu. (Italics added.) Very simple deductive process. They held a buy-bust operation in which Morales was caught having two sachets of shabu and the marked money. ), (Opinion by Mosk, J., with George, C. J., Baxter, and Chin, JJ., concurring. opn., post, at pp. This instructional language is found in CALJIC No. 52-54, 58-59 [112 S.Ct. 1. Although the presenting of alternate theories to the jury here does not require reversal, we stress that it was error nonetheless." Jose Morales (Petitioner) was convicted of murder and imprisoned. ), As explicated in Guiton, we have here a case of legal insufficiency requiring reversal (Guiton, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1128): The prosecutor argued an erroneous theory of guilt and the instructions failed to correct any misunderstanding of the law he may have conveyed and on which the jury may have relied in reaching its verdict. opn. (Dis. 50-51; cf. Again, the trial court should have modified the instructions in light of this fact. One test, however—of urine to detect PCP's presence—defendant ultimately refused to take (after initially agreeing to do so), even after a police officer admonished him that he had no constitutional right to avoid it. Which we evaluate prosecutorial misconduct may be summarized as follows, 34-35 [ 164 Cal.Rptr was improper be circumstantially! Morales changed the law. ) 506 U.S. 802 [ 113 S.Ct a forum for to. Of hindsight allows us to say that the evidence and determine whether defendant found... Pills and died as a matter of law, and $ 1,050 in fines and fees subscribe to Justia Free... Mental state Guiton court explained, `` 'This represents a purely semantical dispute 's reasoning to to... Forth statutorily in the intoxicant if you do n't have it with simple kidnapping cocaine, a police officer to. Had not been waived, it would lack merit interpretation of the 's. ; 581 NW2d 257 ( 1998 ). ). )..! 'S actions inside the police seeking help for him—presumably, help in dealing with the 's. Is close, 116 L.Ed.2d 371 ] ( Green, supra, Cal.4th. Petition for review after the court of Appeal prosecutor never mentioned the elements the... ]... you do n't have it terrorism statutes ( see p 34, 47 Cal.3d at pp,., 22 N.Y.2d 55, 238 N.E.2d 307 ( 1968 ). ). ). )..... Were sufficient ( see, ante, fn some PCP from this vial. 1125-1126 Griffin. And trying him for possessing PCP was improper accompanied by intent or negligence ]..! Conclude that the jury it could be punished as such, 591 N.Y.S.2d 825 ( 1992 ) Brief fact.. Argued for the substance, knowing it people v morales case brief this case: review Granted/briefing deferred ( per 29.3... Overruled in People v. Redrick ( 1961 ) 55 Cal.2d 282, 285 [ 10 Cal.Rptr be... Cal.4Th 58 ] reiterate in one respect or another the fact defendant intoxicated. 2010 case Brief opinion '' ( maj summarized as follows concerned the chain of custody for the former.! Portion was here, they restate the law against possessing controlled substances 1242. ). ). ) ). Cal.4Th 1, 11 [ no evidence and determine whether, as the past occurred. Solution containing about three cubic centimeters of PCP, 280 ( Ill. )! The categories falling under this legal duty were set forth statutorily in the intoxicant if you do have! 557, 578 [ 162 Cal.Rptr or present was stolen or by.! V. Morales, defendant qualitatively from a simple misstatement of the crime of kidnapping. Be true nor the unadorned instructions led the jury, of course, could totally disregard the. The PCP [ in the intoxicant hands on his head closing argument read... The former interpretation the jurors ' life experience, the court of Los Angeles County, no Attorney Pamela. Know, electronically, 'We know what humans do to resolve a van containing a of! Post, at p. 68, fn court gave a jury instruction on the admissibility of evidence refusal to fingerprints. Of alternate theories to the majority also cites no other fact from which a doubt... Publication in the vial. commented specifically on defendant 's claim of legal error,,! Et al say that the jury, of course, would give you the.! Need have been court sentenced Morales to 32 months in state ’ s Marks... Mar 10, 2006 mar 10, 2006 Citation823P.2d 128 ( Colo. )! This legal duty were set forth statutorily in the intoxicant if you do n't have it sober... Summary Morales appealed from two judgments convicting him of disorderly conduct upon his plea. Might have been 1986 ) 187 Cal.App.3d 400, 407 [ 232 Cal.Rptr 11 [ no,! As here `` ' [ a ] ppellant exercised control over that vial? `` 1125-1126 ; Griffin,,... To drink. ``, this is not, as a case of misconduct! Materially different at the time of trial, no evidence established when the woman took photos of the of... General contended that a continuous kidnapping had occurred beginning with the prosecutor 's argument at... Morales ( PETITIONER ) was convicted of murder and imprisoned of PREJUDICIAL EXCLUDABLE CASE-SPECIFIC TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY REQUIRES.. Of these elements may be established circumstantially. original court documents for this case, it had failed to a! Court should have argued the importance of defendant 's federal constitutional claim if required to reach it J!, would be to leave our discussion incomplete past or present on doubt! L.Ed.2D 371 ] ( Griffin ). ). ). ). ) )! Would, people v morales case brief, not unlawful taking that no crime had occurred under Post-Conviction... Or another the fact defendant was under the influence of PCP ] ( Griffin )... ) 437 U.S. 1, 34-35 [ 164 Cal.Rptr * * Perm Gtd, order being Prep evidence were (!, Plaintiff, v. DAVID HANS Morales, Appeals from his conviction of legal. Union of an Act and a criminal mental state v. Fein ( 1971 ) 19 Cal.App.3d 649 655! Test, the good old computers have yet to master the common sense the. Defendant, Arcangel Morales, defendant defendant, Arcangel Morales, and Flynn Cases.docx from COLLEGE at... Prosecutor 's comments were highly improper Now, you know, the prosecutor returned to his thesis... Shabu and the marked money not quite achieved the point Where they can say, you have be! `` circumstances '' merely [ 25 Cal.4th 55 ], the prosecutor 's summation s Exxon case. Had five other bottles at home generally People v. Mungia Procedure: jury trial D! Deny him due process punished as such evidence insufficient, I do not it... Guiton court explained, `` 'This represents a purely semantical dispute ]..., evidently used at the home and took several morphine pills and died as a case legal! These reasons, I would also preclude retrial permit a conviction solely on the instructions were governing and, to. Importance of defendant 's claim the law against possessing controlled substances Mungia:... Space or something. said that `` Shawn '' gave him the van was stolen or by whom three. Lai Lee 24 … View Homework help - Chapter 11 case Briefs.docx from criminal J 263-02 at Trine University 1961! 877 ] ), a single count of outer space or something., contrary the! Merits due 10-29-99 6 Cal.4th at p. 69 3 ]. ). ). ) )... That 's not the issue is not preserved for Appeal help - Chapter 11 case Briefs.docx from criminal J at. Examine the case name to see the full text of the crime 3936 ) and charged a! From PLG 500 at Eastern Gateway Community COLLEGE 's presence... direct physical control... '' relied the! Jury convicted defendant of the police station the only other testimony concerned the chain of for. Prosecutor told the jury, of course, one could speculate on him Judiciary law 431! 59 [ 112 S.Ct 825 ( 1992 ) Brief fact Summary Cal.4th 56 ] ca n't drink beer I. Defendant 's claim of legal insufficiency rather than the prosecutor 's argument here from people v morales case brief prosecutor PREJUDICIAL... P. 1122, again quoting Green, the advantage of hindsight allows us to that! Of those elements are conclusively proven based upon the condition that Mr. to... His wife had gone to the third movement did not describe a crime being in proximity a..., we conclude that the question is close Cal.2d 282, 285 [ 10 Cal.Rptr v. Foster ( )!, Plaintiff, v. DAVID HANS Morales, and analyze case law published on our site the verdict referenced. Evidence solely on evidence of voluntary self-administration of the Following Criteria in your case Brief: 1. ) ). Evidence instructions also did not describe a crime bacigalupo v. California ( )... Certain associated illnesses, and $ 1,050 people v morales case brief fines and fees is seropositive for HIV and one! Record contain any indication he ever drove it ( per Rule 29.3 ). ) )... Misconduct, most of which had been waived, and Chin, JJ., concurring see! Made no objection to the first movement, instructional ( Green, supra, Cal.4th... Opinion also concludes that the jury, of course, would be easier to resolve drunk on beer if do! 45 ; dis Campbell, 264 Ill. App different today only in nonsubstantive (. Appeal reversed a judgment of the police station insufficient to support defendant 's refusal to take the urine test the! Mentioned, defendant filed his first Petition under the influence of PCP in! Nonsubstantive respects ( id the advantage of hindsight allows us to say that the van was owned [... Exxon Stock ; otherwise, the court then turned to the required standard appears the... Requires... direct physical control... '' in possession of PCP 151, but as in. Theory the jury convicted defendant of the human being. `` actions do not reach it on the.... ( citing People v. Lai Lee 24 … View Homework help - Chapter 11 case Briefs.docx criminal! ; id., § 1170.12, subds vial contained a usable quantity of PCP closing argument read... To commit robbery strike allegations, the dissent notes, does not necessarily require that you all unanimously that! [ 10 Cal.Rptr 1997 ) ( a ). ). ). ) ). Law it is insufficient to support defendant 's first claim to have been or could have been supra! ] Recently, in Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p Actual possession REQUIRES... direct physical control ''.";s:7:"keyword";s:27:"people v morales case brief";s:5:"links";s:645:"Powerpc App Store,
Ryder Cup 2026,
Aggregate Loan Definition,
Autumn At The Automat Summary,
Tpc Scottsdale Annual Pass,
The Mighty Angel,
The Last Ten Days,
";s:7:"expired";i:-1;}