 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Beaudoin1/4/2005
ement" through "specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment." (Ibid.)
Defendants contend that further refinement can easily be accomplished, but their only specific suggestion is that the jury "could be instructed that there are multiple standards of proof in the law," i.e., by preponderance of the evidence; by clear and convincing evidence; and by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The point has no merit.
The omission of inapplicable standards from a particular case does not raise the specter that the applicable standard will be applied in an unequal manner. The jury had to decide whether the evidence placed defendants' guilt in doubt and whether that doubt was reasonable. The definitions of "preponderance of evidence" and "clear and convincing evidence" do not tell the jury how to determine whether a doubt is reasonable; they are not essential or even particularly helpful to that task. Their omission in this case did not violate equal protection.
III. Effective Assistance of Counsel on Aranda-Bruton Issue
Defendant Hurst claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney failed to object to the introduction of a post-arrest statement made by Beaudoin that incriminated Hurst. We conclude Hurst suffered no prejudice from counsel's actions.
A. Background information
After each of the defendants testified, the prosecution on rebuttal presented evidence of statements each defendant made in post-arrest interviews with Detective Michael Lensing. Lensing testified Beaudoin said, among other things, he had helped Hurst carry Debra three times. Discussing this point further on cross-examination, counsel for Beaudoin asked Lensing if he recalled the portion of the interview where Beaudoin made that remark. Counsel read the following colloquy from the post-arrest interview transcript as follows:
"Q. [Defense Counsel:] Did you ask a question of Mr. Beaudoin (reading):"
`[Lensing:] You were there; you did it; you had sex with her; you held her down; you helped bring her from her apartment over to his [Hurst's] apartment. I need to get more information. You're just saying that.'
"And Mr. Beaudoin's response was (reading):"
`[Beaudoin:] I helped him with fuckin' nothing more.'
"And then your next statement (reading):"
`[Lensing:] Nothing happened?'
"Mr. Beaudoin's (reading): `[Beaudoin:] I helped him with fuckin' three carries, dude.'
"Your response was (reading): `[Lensing:] You what?
`[Beaudoin:] Three carries.'
"Your next response: `[Lensing:] What do you mean?'
`[Beaudoin:] Well, he wanted to take her, fucking' dude. You call my girl, dude, Teal LeBaron. Ron's had the hots for the bitch from day one, right?'
"Your response: `[Lensing:] Uh-huh.'"
Lensing confirmed this was the portion of his interview with Beaudoin he recalled when he testified under direct that Beaudoin helped Hurst carry Debra three times.
Hurst's counsel made no objection when Beaudoin's attorney recited this portion of the transcript. Before us, Hurst argues his trial counsel's failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel because Beaudoin's statement from the interview incriminated Hurst in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.
B. Analysis
To prevail on this argument, Hurst must show his attorney's performance was constitutionally deficient, and the deficient performance prejudiced his defense, i.e., but for the error, there was a reasonable probability the result would have been different. (S
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.
|
|