P. v. Miranda
A jury found defendant and appellant Daniel Miranda (defendant) guilty of two counts of attempted, premeditated murder and two counts of assault with a firearm. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the gang expert to testify as to the state of mind of various persons, including defendant, and by allowing the expert to testify that the minor with whom defendant was arrested was a self-admitted member of defendants gang. Defendant also contends that the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct when during argument, she speculated on a shooters reflexes. And, defendant argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error by instructing the jury with four CALCRIM instructions that, when read together, misstated the principle of reasonable doubt and the manner in which the jury should view the evidence.
Comments on P. v. Miranda