PEOPLE v. RUSSELL
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html > <head> <title>PEOPLE v</title> </head> <body> <div> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><b >PEOPLE v. RUSSELL</b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>Filed 12/21/10 <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><b >IN THE SUPREME COURT OF </b><b >CALIFORNIA</b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>THE PEOPLE, ) <br/> ) <br/> Plaintiff and Respondent, ) <br/> ) S075875 <br/> v. ) <br/> ) <br/>TIMOTHY RUSSELL, ) <br/> ) Riverside County <br/> Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. RIF72974 <br/>__________________________________ )<u></u> <br/><b >THE COURT:</b> <br/><b ><u>MODIFICATION OF OPINION</u></b><u></u> <br/> <br/> The opinion in this case, filed on November 15, 2010 and appearing at 50 Cal.4th 1228, is modified as follows: <br/> On page 1268, last paragraph on the page, the first sentence is modifed to read: “Even if the trial court’s failure to provide sua sponte a<i > Robertson</i> instruction constituted error, any error was harmless because it is not possibly probable that providing the omitted instruction would have altered the verdict.” The last sentence of that same paragraph, on page 1269, is modified to read: “Accordingly, we conclude that the court’s error, if any, in failing to instruct the jury pursuant to <i >People v. Robertson</i> was harmless because it is not possibly probable that the verdict would have been different.” <br/> This modification does not affect the judgment. <br/> <br/> <br/>Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory. <br/>Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers. <br/>San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com <br/> <br/> </div> </body> </html>