P. v. Moncada
Defendant Leonel Moncada was convicted of the first degree murder of his grandmother, Elvira Diaz, in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a). In a separate proceeding, the jury found defendant was sane[2]at the time he committed the murder. Defendants primary appellate contentions concern his sanity trial. He argues he was prejudiced because the trial court erroneously and prejudicially permitted the prosecutions mental health expert to opine on the ultimate issue of defendants sanity at the time of the murder. He also argues Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2007-2008), CALCRIM No. 3450, the pattern instruction defining the burden of proof and the legal standards for assessing sanity pursuant to sections 25 and 25.5, improperly imposed a mandatory presumption of sanity if the jury found at times defendant was legally sane. We reject both claims and affirm. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony, nor was there a reasonable possibility that defendant was prejudiced by the opinion. Although the challenged aspect of CALCRIM No. 3450 is potentially misleading in the abstract, Court hold that a reasonable juror would not be misled based on the instruction as a whole and there is nothing in the record to suggest the challenged aspect of the instruction improperly affected the jurys verdict in this case.
Comments on P. v. Moncada