P. v. Young
The People of the State of California (the People) appeal the trial courts order granting Andrew Christopher Young (defendant) a new trial after a jury convicted him of attempted murder without premeditation or deliberation (Pen. Code, 664/187) (count 1)[1]; aggravated mayhem ( 205) (count 2); torture ( 206) (count 3); second degree robbery ( 211) (count 4); carjacking ( 215, subd. (a)) (count 5); kidnapping for carjacking ( 209.5, subd. (a)) (count 6); kidnapping ( 207, subd. (a)) (count 7); and false imprisonment by violence ( 236) (count 8).
The People argue in their opening brief that the trial courts order must be reversed for the following reasons: (1) the fact that a co-perpetrator is to be retried cannot serve as a basis for granting a new trial; (2) the granting of a new trial without a finding of prejudicial error is an abuse of discretion; (3) a jurors misconduct in visiting the crime scene was not prejudicial to defendant and a new trial is therefore unwarranted. In their reply brief, the People argue for the first time that the statements attributed to the errant juror constitute inadmissible hearsay. The order appealed from is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Young