PEOPLE v. TATE Part-VI
<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 and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 93308<br /> <br/>__________________________________ )<u></u><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b >Story continued from part V…..</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/>In<br /> any event, it largely lacks merit. <br /> Insofar as the prosecutor questioned why defendant, upon discovering<br /> Sarah LaChapelle's body, did not promptly call the<br /> police, the prosecutor was not casting suspicion upon defendant's silence during<br /> a period after he had been arrested, and had heard and decided to exercise his <i<br /> >Miranda</i> rights. The prosecutor was simply making the point<br /> that if, as defendant now claimed, he innocently came upon the horrific murder<br /> of his family's neighbor, it would have been natural to summon assistance<br /> immediately. Such questions did not<br /> violate <i >Doyle</i>, and were not improper.<br /> <br/>When<br /> the prosecutor went further, and asked whether defendant had told <i<br /> >anyone</i> the supposed true facts prior to<br /> trial, a defense objection on attorney-client privilege grounds was promptly<br /> sustained. If incipient <i<br /> >Doyle</i> misconduct lurked in this<br /> question, it was thus nipped in the bud.<br /> <br/>Defendant<br /> also complains of the prosecutor's efforts to elicit the content of his<br /> pretrial conversations with his counsel. <br /> He asserts these efforts were invasions of his attorney-client<br /> privilege, as well as improper attempts to insinuate that he and his counsel<br /> colluded to produce â€