 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Singh2/10/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Appellant Michael Manjeet Singh was convicted after a jury trial on three counts of murder, involving appellant's ex-girlfriend Rhoshima Pippins Glass (Rhoshima), his young son Michael, and Rhoshima's unborn child. (Pen. Code, § 187.) The jury also found true special circumstances that appellant had committed multiple murders, and committed the murders by lying in wait. (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3) & (15).) In the penalty phase, the jury rejected the death penalty, and appellant was sentenced to life without possibility of parole.
Appellant makes the following four main contentions: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by excluding his proffered evidence that an anonymous and unknown telephone caller had claimed responsibility for the crime; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by implying that defense counsel believed appellant was guilty; (3) the doctrine of transferred intent was improperly applied to the first degree murder charge of killing Rhoshima's unborn child; and (4) the trial court prejudicially abused its discretion by rejecting his motion to disclose confidential personal information concerning the jurors, in order to permit contact to investigate possible grounds for a new trial motion.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
We first point out that appellant has not been very forthcoming in reciting the evidence in the case against him, perhaps because such evidence strongly points toward his guilt.
In summary, appellant was a student at the University of California at Berkeley. He was angry with his ex-girlfriend Rhoshima, because she had previously become pregnant, and had given birth to a young son, Michael, also called Mike-Mike, and the blood tests showed that appellant was the father. Appellant told friends he feared a child would interfere with his future career as a lawyer, and he didn't want Rhoshima to have the baby. Late one evening, appellant lured Rhoshima and Mike-Mike to a deserted Safeway store parking lot, and shot them both at close range, killing them instantly. Rhoshima's unborn fetus also died.
A. The Shootings and the Discovery of the Victims
Several people were in the Safeway parking lot either just before or just after the time of the shootings.
Robert Kolkmann was asleep in his van, after driving to the parking lot from a laundromat at about 1:30 a.m. He saw a dark car with three or four people near the front of the Safeway, which was normally open 24 hours, but was closed that night, for stripping of the floors. Kolkmann also saw a police officer stop at the pay phone at the front of the Safeway and make a call. Later, he was awakened by three or four popping noises which sounded like a car backfiring. He looked around and heard an engine roar, but saw nothing.
Hayward Police Officer Tony Bartholomew placed a phone call at the Safeway pay phone at 1:45 a.m. He then left to do a "bar check," but was dispatched back to the scene at 2:04 a.m. When he returned, the victim's car was located in the back of the Safeway parking lot, idling roughly. Bartholomew would have heard the very loud idling noise from the car if it had been making a similar noise when he placed the telephone call.
Gary Jose had been drinking at a friend's house. He walked to the Safeway to get something to eat, but found it
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|