 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Singh2/10/2003
At some time in the past Purnima had seen Rhoshima wearing appellant's jacket. On cross-examination, Purnima admitted she had not told the police about seeing Rhoshima wearing appellant's jacket, and she denied asking Leslie Lelaind not to speak to the authorities, or to provide a false alibi for her son.
J. Rebuttal Evidence
Leslie Lelaind reaffirmed that appellant's mother Purnima told her not to go to the police, and urged her to lie by saying that appellant was with Lelaind at the time of the shootings. Purnima also encourage Lelaind to say that she had merely been playing with her pager, rather than repeatedly trying to page appellant on the night of the shootings. When Lelaind asked why she should have to lie if appellant was innocent, Purnima cut Lelaind off and told her to just do it.
K. Surrebuttal
The defense next recalled Lelaind as a surrebutal witness. Lelaind stated that when she had been repeatedly paging appellant on the night of the shootings, she had been concerned that appellant might have been "cheating" on her.
L. Verdicts
The jury convicted appellant of all three first degree murders as charged, finding he personally used a firearm in the commission of the offenses. The jury also found true the special circumstance allegations that appellant committed multiple murders, and committed the murders by lying in wait. (Pen. Code, ยง 190.2, subd. (a)(3) & (15).)
In the penalty phase, the jury rejected the death penalty. Appellant's new trial motion was denied, and he was sentenced to life without possibility of parole.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Exclusion of Third Party Culpability Evidence
Appellant first contends the trial court abused its discretion, and violated his federal constitutional rights, by excluding his proffered evidence of third party culpability in the murders. We first briefly summarize the evidence appellant contends should have been admitted, then we discuss the applicable law, and finally we apply the law to the evidence adduced at trial.
1. Evidence Appellant Contends Should Have Been Admitted
Appellant sought to produce evidence that other persons felt hostility towards Rhoshima, such as her other ex-boyfriend Michael Glass (Glass), as well as two sisters, identified at trial as the Mills sisters, whom Rhoshima had allegedly defrauded. It was undisputed that Glass had been in prison in Tennessee at the time of the murders, so he could not have perpetrated them. Further, there was no specific evidence offered linking any of these hostile third parties to the crimes.
Appellant also refers to a recording of a phone call made a few days after the shootings and his own arrest, in which an unknown person with a disguised voice called Rhoshima's mother's hair salon, and claimed he had perpetrated the murder: "I killed Rhoshima, Ha, Ha, Ha." The trial court observed this statement might have been otherwise admissible as third party culpability evidence, except that it was obviously hearsay, did not come within any proffered exception to the hearsay rule, and was untrustworthy.
2. Legal Principles
As a fundamental element of due process of law a criminal defendant must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, subject to the limitations imposed by the rules of evidence. (People v. Sixto (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 374, 398-399; People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 464; People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 58; People v. Jackson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1203-1204.) A criminal defendant has the right to present exculpatory evidence of third party culpability if
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.
|
|