Business and corporate lawyer

Appellant sought review of an order of the Superior Court, San Francisco County (California) that entered judgment, upon a jury verdict, convicting appellant of one count of oral copulation, two counts of rape, and one count of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury in violation of Cal. Penal Code §§ 288a(c), 261(2), and 245(a)(1).

At appellant's trial on charges of oral copulation, rape, and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury in violation of Cal. Penal Code, §§ 288a(c), 261(2), and 245(a)(1), the prosecution objected to the introduction of any evidence of specific acts of misconduct by the victim to impeach her. In response, appellant's counsel stated her intention to introduce evidence of two instances in which the victim had falsely accused other men of rape. The trial court sustained the prosecution's objection. In his defense, appellant asserted the victim consented to sex in exchange for cocaine and when appellant refused to give her the drugs, she accused him of rape in retaliation. Subsequently, the business and corporate lawyer found appellant guilty. Appellant sought review following sentencing. On review, appellant claimed the trial court erred in excluding the evidence of false accusations. The court reversed the conviction because the evidence of the victims' previous accusations was admissible pursuant to Cal. Const. art. I, § 28(d), and the trial court's erroneous exclusion of the evidence resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The court reversed the order of conviction because it was error to exclude otherwise admissible evidence that the victim had on two occasions falsely accused others of rape prior to accusing appellant.

Defendant was entitled to an automatic appeal pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1239(b) after he was sentenced to death for convictions for two counts of robbery, one count of attempted murder, and one count of first degree murder with a special circumstance by the Superior Court of Madera County (California).

After defendant was sentenced to death for robbing and shooting two people in a drug trafficking scheme, one fatally, this automatic appeal was taken pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1239(b). The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in the guilt phase and the special circumstance finding, but reversed the judgment in the penalty phase. The court remanded for a new penalty trial after identifying two reversible errors committed by the trial court. First, when admitting evidence of aggravation in the penalty phase, the trial court failed to confine "criminal activities" to evidence demonstrating the commission of an actual crime. Because there was a reasonable possibility that the improper introduction of the alleged misconduct affected the jury's verdict, its admission had to be deemed prejudicial to defendant. Second, the trial court erred by its failure to give a "reasonable doubt" instruction, which tainted all of the other crimes that could properly have been considered by the jury as aggravating factors under Cal. Penal Code § 190.3(b). This error was prejudicial given that the prosecution's penalty phase evidence rested so heavily on other crimes evidence.

The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the guilt phase and the special circumstance finding. However, the court reversed the judgment on the penalty phase because the trial court's errors were deemed prejudicial to the defendant. The court remanded for a new penalty trial.