 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Beaudoin1/4/2005
bra appeared extremely intoxicated and unsteady on her feet. When Johnson shined his flashlight in her eyes, Debra gave no reaction. To Johnson, she appeared to be under the influence of a stimulant. He escorted her to the living room.
Katherine Markes came out of the other bedroom, and deputies found Beaudoin sitting on the bed in that room. They arrested both defendants.
Outside, Debra appeared "extremely intoxicated and mildly confused." Debra asked officers "what they put in her drink," then began nearly to hyperventilate repeating the question more loudly. She told Johnson both defendants "had started in on her sexually."
At the hospital, Debra was crying, her eyes were swollen, and she had "sleepy periods." She complained her stomach hurt. A forensic nurse examined Debra and discovered Debra had bruises on both of her inner arms and abrasions on each shin area. The nurse located a reddened area at the bottom of Debra's perineum that was "tender with palpation." The inner side of her labia minora was swollen and red. The nurse opined this condition was not normal. The nurse also noted Debra was menstruating at the time.
Conducting an internal exam, the nurse observed Debra's cervix was swollen "and petechiae, which is a red or purple spots on the tissue." The nurse opined these injuries were not normal and were not consistent with consensual sex.
Blood samples from both defendants and from Debra each indicated the presence of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as Ecstasy, in excess of 500 nanograms per milliliter. These levels of MDMA were "higher than what most people recreationally use the drug for." Defendant Beaudoin's blood sample also contained 80 nanograms per milliliter of methamphetamine.
No alcohol was detected in Beaudoin's sample. Defendant Hurst's blood-alcohol content was 0.01 percent; Debra's was 0.06 percent. Based on a normal rate of dissipation, Debra's blood-alcohol content at 3:00 a.m. would have been as high as 0.15 percent.
Experts performed DNA tests on defendants' clothes and on penile and scrotum swabs taken from defendants. Cells matching Debra's DNA were found on Beaudoin's penile and scrotum swabs and Hurst's penile swab. Cells matching both Debra's and Hurst's DNA were also found on Hurst's scrotal swab. Debra's cells were the major DNA profile on that swab, and Hurst's cells were the minor DNA profile.
Cells matching Debra's DNA were also found on a bloodstain on the front fly of Beaudoin's boxer shorts, and on a bloodstain on the upper left leg of Hurst's jeans.
Defendants presented witnesses and testified on their own behalf. We will discuss their testimony and other evidence they presented as may be necessary to resolve this appeal.
DISCUSSION
I. CALJIC No. 2.03
Defendants claim the trial court violated their constitutional rights when it instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 2.03, allowing the jurors to consider as evidence of a consciousness of guilt any false or misleading statements defendants made before trial regarding their crimes. We disagree.
Defendants argue the instruction improperly pinpointed evidence in favor of the prosecution in violation of the Supreme Court's rulings in People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126 and People v. Harris (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1047. Actually, in People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 531, the Supreme Court rejected defendants' argument, holding the instruction was not an improper pinpoint instruction in favor of the prosecution.
Defendants acknowledge we are obligated to follow the Supreme Court's holding in Kelly (see Auto Equity Sa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|