P. v. Newman
A jury convicted James Edward Newman of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a))[1] and found that he personally discharged a firearm in committing the crime ( 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced Newman to 40 years to life in prison. On appeal, Newman asserts numerous claims of instructional error. First, he claims the trial court erred in instructing the jury on willfully false or deliberately misleading statements (CALJIC No. 2.03), efforts to suppress evidence (CALJIC No. 2.06) and flight (CALJIC No. 2.52) because the inferences supported by these instructions (i.e., a consciousness of guilt) were irrelevant to the case. Second, Newman contends the trial court erred by giving an extemporaneous instruction of the different mental states required for murder and voluntary manslaughter. As discussed below, Court conclude that the trial court's consciousness of guilt instructions were proper under controlling California Supreme Court case law. With respect to the trial's court extemporaneous instruction regarding the intent requirement for voluntary manslaughter, we conclude that the statement was legally incorrect, but not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal in light of subsequent instructions that cured the court's misstatement. Consequently, Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Newman