PEOPLE v. TATE Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>PEOPLE v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >PEOPLE v. TATE</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/8/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >IN THE SUPREME<br /> COURT OF </b><b >CALIFORNIA</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>THE PEOPLE, )<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/> Plaintiff<br /> and Respondent, )<br /> <br/> ) S031641<br /> <br/> v. )<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/>GREGORY O. TATE, )<br /> <br/> ) Alameda<br /> County<br /> <br/> Defendant<br /> and Appellant. ) Super.<br /> Ct. No. 93308<br /> <br/>__________________________________ )<u></u><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b >Story continued from part I…..</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>The<br /> court took the matter up again on September<br /> 8, 1992. Having reviewed the<br /> prosecutor's draft,<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup> the court proposed its own question. With the prosecutor's approval, this version<br /> included reference to the assumed facts that a woman was robbed, stabbed, <i<br /> >and bludgeoned</i> to death in her own<br /> home. Defense counsel urged that this<br /> was inadequate because it left out the most serious piece of aggravating<br /> evidence, i.e., that the victim's finger was severed. The court responded that it intended to omit<br /> this latter detail because whether, and why, the finger was severed was a jury<br /> issue. The court said that if a severed<br /> finger were mentioned, it would â€