P. v. Edwards
Christopher Edwards appeals from his conviction for willful, premeditated and deliberate attempted murder. On appeal he claims the court gave legally inadequate jury instructions CALCRIM Nos. 226 and 315, concerning eyewitness identification issues. Edwards also asserts his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge these instructions, or offer expert testimony concerning eyewitness identification issues and for failing to challenge the show up identification. Finally he asserts the prosecutor committed misconduct and committed Doyle error when she asked a question at trial which elicited the fact Edwards had requested counsel during his police interview. As we shall explain, none of these claims resulted in prejudicial, reversible error. Both CALCRIM Nos. 226 and 315 adequately convey the matters for the jury to weigh when considering eyewitness identification evidence. In addition, Edwards has not demonstrated his counsel was ineffective in failing to offer an identification expert or challenge the out of court identification. Finally, he has not demonstrated prejudicial Doyle error. Accordingly, Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Edwards