P. v. Stinnett
A jury convicted Robert Curtis Stinnett of violating Penal Code sections 666 (petty theft with a prior)[1]and 488 (petty theft). He was sentenced to an aggravated term of three years, plus four one-year enhancements that resulted from four prior convictions, each resulting in prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)), for a total term of seven years.
We agree with Stinnett that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte with three separate instructions (Judicial Council of Cal. Crim. Jury Instns. (2006-2007), CALCRIM Nos. 358, 359, 1800). Court also agree that the prosecutor committed misconduct during his cross-examination of Stinnett by asking Stinnett if other witnesses, whose testimony contradicted Stinnetts testimony, were lying. We affirm the judgment, however, because these errors, either singularly or together, did not result in a reasonable probability that Stinnett would have obtained a better result if he had received an error free trial.
Comments on P. v. Stinnett