P. v. Jimenez
Arturo Jimenez appeals from his conviction of the first degree murder of Gary Rivera, with an enhancement for personal use of a firearm. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d).)[1] He argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish the identity of the perpetrator of the offense and to establish premeditation. In a related argument, he contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial on the ground that the guilty verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. He also contends the trial court committed a number of other reversible errors: failing to instruct the jury on unreasonable self-defense and heat of passion voluntary manslaughter; admitting evidence that appellants associates had threatened a key prosecution witness; admitting a video recording of the party at which the crime occurred; and denying a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct without holding an evidentiary hearing. Finally, he challenges the mandatory firearm enhancement to his sentence as unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.
Court find no prejudicial error, and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Jimenez