P. v. Collins
Filed 8/13/10 P. v. Collins CA1/3
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
THE
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARCELL
ANDRE COLLINS,
Defendant and Appellant.
A124030
(Contra
Costa County
Super. Ct. No. 05-071225-7)
Appellant
Marcell Andre Collins was convicted by a jury of various charges stemming from
two incidents in which he threatened and inflicted injury upon his live-in
girlfriend. On appeal, he contends the
admission into evidence of an uncharged incident of domestic violence under
Evidence Code section 1109 violated his due
process rights. He also asserts that
instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 852 violated his due process rights by
lessening the prosecution's burden of proof.
We affirm the judgment.
Factual and
Procedural Background
22 Incident
In
May 2007, appellant began living with Ashley Humphreys in her two-bedroom
apartment in Antioch. They were dating and shared the apartment's
master bedroom. Ashley Jones and Brianne
Schulte occupied the apartment's second bedroom.
On
May 22, 2007, at about 10:00 a.m.,
appellant and Humphreys were arguing about keeping the apartment clean. In addition, appellant was upset because
Humphreys had received a text message from Don Sellers, with whom she had an
off-and-on relationship. Appellant, who
was â€
| Description | Appellant Marcell Andre Collins was convicted by a jury of various charges stemming from two incidents in which he threatened and inflicted injury upon his live-in girlfriend. On appeal, he contends the admission into evidence of an uncharged incident of domestic violence under Evidence Code section 1109 violated his due process rights. He also asserts that instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 852 violated his due process rights by lessening the prosecution's burden of proof. Court affirm the judgment. |
| Rating |
