 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Walsh1/18/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Defendant Jessica Marie Walsh was charged, inter alia, with violating Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (assault with a deadly weapon). The charges stemmed from defendant's participation in an early morning fight occurring on March 17, 2002. The fight occurred outside of a San Jose residence that had been the scene of a St. Patrick's Day party attended by many youths, including defendant and the minor victim, Amber C. As a result of this fight, Amber received multiple stab wounds.
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted on February 4, 2003, of assault with a deadly weapon and carrying a concealed dirk and dagger. It also found true the allegations of two enhancements. The court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of four years.
Defendant challenges the conviction, claiming (1) instructional error in that the court refused defendant's request for two pinpoint instructions concerning self-defense, (2) instructional error in that the court gave a self-defense instruction that was prejudicially misleading, and (3) sentencing error under the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004) ___ U.S. ___ [124 S.Ct. 2531] (Blakely). We conclude that there was no error in the court's refusal of the pinpoint instructions, that the error with respect to the self-defense instruction given by the court was harmless, and that there was no Blakely error. We therefore affirm the judgment. FACTS
We present a summary of the evidence from the trial utilizing the applicable standard. We resolve factual conflicts in support of the verdict. (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 667-668.)
I. Prosecution Witnesses
A. Amber C.
At the time of her testimony at trial in January 2003, Amber C. was 18 years old, was approximately five feet eight inches tall, and weighed about 174 pounds. On March 16, 2002, she went to a party in South San Jose on Corte Verde Drive with her sister, Amy, and Amber's friends, Gena, Kristen, and Darlene. They arrived between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
During the time that Amber was at the party, she consumed six Smirnoff Ice drinks. She also smoked "a bowl" of marijuana with some friends. As a result, she was "pretty drunk" by the time of her altercations with defendant.
In the living room, Amber observed defendant's friend talking over the telephone with Jason, the father of Darlene's baby. After Amber spoke over the phone with Jason, defendant asked Amber: " `What are you doing talking to him, you stupid bitch?' " Amber responded, " `Bitch, you got me twisted' " (meaning that defendant had "just called the wrong person a bitch"). Defendant and Amber began fighting (wrestling and punching); the fight was broken up a few seconds later.
Defendant then threw her arms up and told Amber (in a loud and angry tone), " `Come outside, bitch, come outside.' " Defendant then went outside, and shortly afterward, Amber heard a tapping on the living room window that she thought was being done by defendant. Amber then went outside, where she was immediately confronted by defendant (within three feet of the doorway). (Amber went outside with the intention of continuing her fight with defendant.) Amber then felt pain in her left arm--it felt " ind of like dead arm." At that point, she did not know that she
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|