They also contend the lying-in-wait special circumstance must be stricken as unconstitutionally vague.īased on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments. They further contend the court committed prejudicial error by failing sua sponte to instruct on the defense of third-party culpability.
Const., 6th and 14th Amends.) was abridged when the trial court prejudicially excluded third party culpability evidence.
They contend their right to present a defense (U.S. Appellants were each sentenced to life without possibility of parole on their murder conviction, plus 25 years to life on the discharge enhancement.Īppellants contend their judgments must be reversed, because the prosecutor improperly excused three jurors for impermissible race reasons. (a)(15)) and the allegations of personal and intentional discharge of a handgun which proximately caused death (§ 12022.53, subd. (a) count 1), 1 and true findings on the special circumstance allegations of lying-in-wait (§ 190.2, subd.
This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.ĭaniel and Ricardo Verduzco (collectively, appellants) appeal from their respective judgments of conviction following a jury trial that resulted in their conviction of first degree murder (Pen. 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).
0 kommentar(er)
