P. v. Canfield
Robert Canfield (Canfield) appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of first degree burglary and first degree robbery (Pen. Code, 459, 211). He contends: (1) his due process rights were violated when the court instructed the jury, in accordance with CALCRIM No. 315, that it could consider the victims subjective certainty in identifying Canfield as a factor in evaluating the reliability of the identification; (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish that Canfield was the perpetrator; and (3) the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. His first argument has been repeatedly rejected by California appellate courts, and his other two arguments are meritless as well. Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Canfield