legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Wardell

P. v. Wardell
02:27:2006

Filed 12/15/05 P. v. Wardell CA6


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE, H027777


Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Clara County


Superior Court


v. No. CC302587)


CHRISTOPHER JAMES WARDELL,


Defendant and Appellant.


_____________________________________/


Defendant was convicted by jury trial of three counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) and fourteen counts of felony false imprisonment, and the jury found true that he had personally used a firearm in the commission of each offense (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)). Defendant admitted that he had served a prison term for a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). He was committed to state prison to serve a term of 23 years and 8 months.


On appeal, defendant asserts that the judgment must be reversed because the trial court prejudicially erred in (1) admitting into evidence an out-of-court testimonial statement by his non-testifying accomplice that the accomplice was the driver of the getaway car, (2) failing to give various instructions related to the accomplice's statement, (3) admitting evidence of defendant's statements to the police and (4) instructing the jury regarding the mental state required for the firearm enhancements. We conclude that the trial court's federal constitutional error in admitting into evidence defendant's accomplice's out-of-court testimonial statement requires reversal of the judgment.


I. Evidence At Trial


A Bank of America branch in San Jose was robbed shortly before 4:00 p.m. on January 21, 2003. The lone robber was a black man wearing a ski mask, gloves, a black jacket and dark or black pants and carrying a large revolver. Most of the witnesses described the robber as between 5 feet, 10 inches tall and six feet tall, though one witness described him as â€





Description A decision regarding second degree robbery.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale